29
   

FINAL COUNTDOWN FOR USA ELECTION 2008

 
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2008 10:08 am
@okie,
Quote:
Libs are getting frantic. I don't think I've seen nimh so agitated. And why does he care about who we elect as president, it isn't his business as far as I can tell. And what does it matter how the rest of the world votes for president here? I don't think it is their job to elect our president.

Hey Okie,

You are not alone in wondering why non-Americans around the world care about our elections, but I think this just underscores how important America is to the rest of the world. Can you imagine you or I going to a political rally in Washington D.C. to help Angela Merkel ? Wouldn't that tell us something about Germany's influence upon our lives?

I value, as I'm sure you do too, nimh and Rama's opinion because they add depth to the discussion. I have visited other threads of political and evolutionary discussions where the contributions are obviously one sided and boring. Hearing both sides is invaluable. Many find and post articles that they think reinforces their position. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't, but we are all thereby informed. Given the goal of deciding who is the best candidate for acceptance, this can only be helpful.

The great computer debate was finally recognized for what it was and the argument regarding porcine/canine cosmetics has been spent, both being argumentative sideshows. However, maybe its like buying a whole album, or CD, to get just one song you like--sometimes you find gems hidden within the "fillers" that are just as good or better, are more to your liking, or open up conceptual landscapes that you never knew existed.

JM


0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2008 10:23 am
Cyclo wrote:
Wow - their own advisers admitting that they don't care if they get caught lying? Talk of the 'media filter?'

They don't care, because the conservatives have already ate up all the lies as if they are the truth; and it has also shown that with their lies, McCain/Palin is winning more of the voter's hearts.

Look at all the conservative advocates on a2k who continue to support the lies as if everybody else is lying, and only they understand what facts are.

Evidence no long matters; it's the votes, stupid!

0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  3  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2008 11:24 am
Politicians and executive policy makers have been known to tell lies, regardless of their Party affiliation. This happens regardless of the "liar's" Party affiliation. That's because politicians and policy makers are humans and subject to the same motivations that cause all of us to lie from time to time.

The Reprehensible Lie: Sometimes people tell lies, deliberate falsehoods, to serve their own self-interest. On one hand, people tell lies to avoid shame and censure. On the other hand, the “lie” is intended to gain wealth, fame, power, or political support. Both of these varieties of “untruth” are reflections of a flawed individual character. When this sort of “lie” is told under oath, it is perjury. Otherwise, lies like these are seldom illegal, or even very uncommon.

Technical Lies, that carry little moral/ethical weight:When the purpose of deliberately telling a lie isn’t personally motivated it remains a “lie”, but a “lie” society judges quite differently. Strict adherence to absolute honesty is not a virtue, and can often cause more suffering than a lie. To tell an elderly victim of Alzheimer’s Disease that their long dead spouse is just visiting relatives in Europe is a lie. Santa Clause is a lie, but what parent shall be condemned for it? For a high government official to deny that troops will be dispatched to some world’s hot spot may be a lie, but its purpose is to maintain operational security that will save lives lead to victory. Sometimes the bare facts will lead to panic and chaos, while a “lie” will preserve the peace and order needed to effectively respond to a dangerous situation. In these two examples telling a “lie” doesn’t signal a personal character flaw, and most people in our society will not condemn the liar under normal circumstances. If officials were disqualified from office by uttering the lie designed and intended to serve the public good, then no effective officials will ever be found. For many of us President Clinton's lies under oath (perjury) regarding his sexual adventures was sufficient for impeachment. The Congress, and many Americans didn't agree and we now have a better idea of just how large and significant a lie must be to justify impeachment.

Untruths that are not technically lies:Not every kind of untruthful utterance is a lie, even in a technical sense. Making untrue statements often results from the very human practice of generalizing and drawing premature conclusions from incomplete data. When your friend says that all red-headed people are drunken fighters, that isn’t true even if your friend believes it from his past experience. Its easy to say that everyone should fully investigate matters, apply rigorous logic to the data and qualify conclusions. The world doesn’t work that way. Generalization is necessary for anything to be accomplished, even though we should all recognize that generalization is as often wrong about particulars as it is right. No matter how closely and well we do research, it is not possible to know everything that might be important to our conclusions. Suppose that your car’s gas gauge was broken, and your wife when asked said that she had filled the tank. You get in and run out of gas within a few miles. Did your wife lie, or did she misremember when she last filled up the tank?

When a person honestly believes that they know something, and later when it turns out they were wrong that doesn't magically turn their assertions into lies, or deceptions. Our senses, education, and values color what we believe and almost without exception those same foundations for interpreting the world around us are wrong to some extent. Perhaps a good example is the film "Roshomon", where the same event is described quite differently by three eye-witnesses, none of whom lie.

Accusations of lying as a Political weapon:“Truth” when it comes to partisan politics is a different matter. The fact of the matter is that all partisan camps are equally guilty of “spin”. One variety of "spin" is careful, but misleading, phrasing. The listener "fills in the blanks" depending upon their own prejudices and preferences. This isn't a "lie", but it is often a conscious way of appealing to the emotional needs of the audience.

All politicians spin untruths, with little regard for facts. The intent is always to build support for one's cause while attacking the character and integrity of the opposition. Some politicians and partisan zealots are more vocal and vicious than others, but to some extent spin is just part of the real world of politics. Misspoken, misremembered, out of context, or misquoted speech/writing, is often characterized as a lie when uttered by someone we politically oppose. If the politician is a favorite of our insist on qualifying the "offending quote" to put it into context, or show that it was misquoted, misspoken, or just an innocent mistake. That's also spin, even when the "facts" are on our side.

Accepting and excusing an untruth while rejecting another as a “lie” based only on one’s Partisan choices is hypocrisy, yet almost all of us are guilty of it. Maybe it shouldn’t be that way, but it is and always has been. The wise voter attaches little importance to mud slinging accusations of “lies” by figures in the opposing Party.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2008 11:35 am
@Asherman,
But it's the media pointing out McCain's lies. That's not the 'other party.' Shouldn't voters pay attention to fact checking by the media?

Or are you a typical Republican, of the opinion that it doesn't matter if one lies or not?

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2008 11:39 am
@Asherman,
Interesting Ash.

For me, the Reprehensible Lie is the one--overtly or by omission--that is intended to ridicule or diminish or harm or hurt or destroy or injure or unlawfully take from another or has that potential.

Technical lies are sort of wishful thinking. Embellishing one's resume to make him/her look better knowing that it misrepresents the facts for instance. Or, as you point out, to avoid breaking a confidence or compromising security or tactical advantage. Or to avoid unnecessarily embarrasing or injuring another person. I also put exaggeration for effect in this category.

Agreed on untruths that are not lies. When you believe you are telling the truth and later discover you were in error, that is a mistake, not a lie.

Political lies (or false spin) is pretty much the same thing as marketing spin. It is part and parcel of the game I guess. But in both cases there should be limits among honorable people. To say that your candidate is the best man for the job might be a lie, but it is acceptable. To say that your opponent is no better than Hitler is almost certainly a lie, and is not acceptable. To say that your product is best when you know it isn't is acceptable. To say that your product will cure cancer when it won't is not.



Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2008 08:57 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
What media? I'm sure you're aware that any statements you make about the media is a very, very wide generalization. The media is made up of almost countless individuals and organizations that utilize various modes of communication to reach a targeted audience. It is very diverse, and very few statements about "the media" apply to all the different organizations represented. It might be fair to say that the media in the United States is characterized by their use of communications to earn a profit. Further, it might also be fair to comment that delivering real, fair, unbiased, and totally factual news is secondary, even with the most prestigious news organizations. What we get, almost universally, are stories designed to deliver the largest audience possible to people/organization who pay the bills. Finding unbiased news that is completely factual is a virtual impossibility. Reporters and their editors are people with their own biases and prejudices whose knowledge and understanding is limited. Because someone has published a story doesn't make that story true or even factual.

When it comes to reporting highly emotional stories, like politics or religion, the biases and reliability of stories is even more suspect. Organizations that publish political commentary or "news" are even more apt to spin a story than the candidates themselves. The candidates have to be careful not to alienate voters, while all a "news" organization has to do is deliver an audience. Political reports and polling can pretty much always be found to support ANY position that a ready audience might like.

Both political Parties accuse "the media" of being biased against them. We conservatives complain of the liberal press, and they in turn argue that the large news outlets are controlled by rich conservatives. The Commentariate, largely self anointed, make a good living catering to the political extremes. Who listens to them? The extremists who share their biases, and the opposition extremists who find ready ammunition for their own diatribes. Obama isn't responsible for the outrageous things said and alleged by his partisans here, or in the National Inquirer. He's said attacking Gov. Palin's personal life and family is off limits, so his skirts are clean. You won't hear nasty and outrageous attacks on Obama from responsible GOP candidates or spokespersons, but we love the discomfort that those unsolicited attacks might bring to the Democrats. When we are on the receiving end, we cry "foul". And, when the opposition is the target of false or tainted stories they cry "foul". Sometimes the attacks are intentional and outright lies. But far more often in these political correct times, the offending communication even when its intentional is an insinuation or "stretch" made from some small factoid. The offense isn't really a lie, its only a "question" or "suggestion" that some act or statement made by the targeted politician is somehow "wrong". Its nasty and offensive to sensitive souls who can convince themselves that they are on the side of the angels.

Lets go back to one of the very earliest political campaigns in our nation's history, the election of 1800. Jefferson, always careful of how history might see him, stayed pretty much above the fray in public. What he did was to employ a network of "newspapers" and writers to do his dirty work for him. The public attacks, insinuations, "spin" against John Adams was arguably the dirtiest smear campaign ever, but Jefferson denied having anything to do with it. The lies were so vicious that the Federalist Party and Adams were moved to pass legislation that political commentary and news must be factual and true. Alas, that was pretty much political suicide for our Party. It might be interesting to note, that once elected Jefferson used that same legislation (before it was rescinded) to stifle opposition to himself and his own policies. Politicians, of every Party have been using the press ever since to gain support for their cause, and to attack and destroy the opposition.

I'm pretty sure you will object to this post, Cyclops. After all, I'm one of those stupid, evil, conservative Republicans who never tell the truth and are complicit in all of the world's problems. Oh well......
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2008 09:22 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cyclops, I don't think I have ever seen anyone so worked up, so in a frenzy to prove your man is the second coming, while at the same time you are so hell bent on finding something, anything, even if it takes an army of investigators in Alaska and elsewhere, to find all the dirt you can imagine on your chosen enemies, McCain and Palin. I think you have become so blinded by your religiously held political beliefs and mission that you have lost all semblance of any objectivity.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2008 09:24 pm
But yes, the public should pay attention to what the media reports. And the public should be intensely interested in the obvious bias in what the media reports. It is for certain that those who go only to the most blatantly biased sources for their information are not in the least interested in truth or honest reporting though.
Cycloptichorn
 
  4  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2008 09:43 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

But yes, the public should pay attention to what the media reports. And the public should be intensely interested in the obvious bias in what the media reports. It is for certain that those who go only to the most blatantly biased sources for their information are not in the least interested in truth or honest reporting though.


Surely, this is what you refer to?

http://startnow72.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/fox-news-logo.jpg

Ash,

The media has lately been calling McCain out on his lies. When you say 'what media?', I must assume that you have read no major papers nor visited many major news websites lately, as they have all been doing it. Why would the McCain camp tell it's supporters that they don't care if the media calls them liars? What does that say about them?

Cycloptichorn
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2008 09:55 pm
@Foxfyre,
The intentional lie, a deliberate misstatment of "facts" known is only accepatable in a limited number of situations. It's wrong to kill, but it isn't wrong for a soldier, police officer or state executioner to take a life because society gives them that authority for its own well-being. Heads of State and their spokespeople are also expected and "authorized" to to tell lies intended to protect or profit the people they represent.

Governments are in a constant competition with foreign governments. National security, prosperity, and even survival often depend upon deception. Our representatives have to deceive and mislead other governments constantly. At the same time every government is seeking and advantage by knowing the secrets of other governments, both friend and foe. People have criticized our Intelligence Community for not knowing and stopping the attacks on 9/11. Many are still wrongly convinced that FDR knew and was complicit in the attack on Pearl Harbor. Both were intelligence failures, but in the secret world mistakes and failure to fully comprehend what others intend is common. Intelligence failures get reported, but Intelligence successes are ... secret. Secrets are vital, and are cloaked in a tangle of lies. That's how the game is played. If you don't like the game and determine that your government will never lie, you are bearing the nation's breast to mortal attack. The American People and government tend to be uncomfortable with Intelligence work because it does invovle secrecy and lies. It means dealing with traitors and people of really dispicable character. It also calls for working with high-minded patriots who are willing to die in the struggle with tyrany and oppression. During the latter days of the Cold War the US government, both Congress and Executive (both Parties), began to reign in our Intelligence apparatice. HUMINT was out, and so we closed down many of our networks in foreign countries. We began to rely instead on technical intelligence that could be gleaned quietly, and with less moral ambiguity. We still lead the world in technical intelligence, but we are far behind in our ability to get inside the opposition's decision/policy circles. Our society broadcasts openly stuff that other nations cloak with the highest degree of secrecy and lies.

Government lies, and we should be thankful every minute of every day that is so. Only a fool would expect the President to tell the world that we expect to land on the beaches of Normandy during the first few weeks of November. If a report were to ask when will invade the continent of Europe, it's perfectly acceptable and reasonable for the President to reply, "We have no such plans."

Finally, I don't recognize any distinction between "false" and "true(?)" spin. There is only spin and it is always used to benefit someone, or some organization. A person is fired from their job, and goes to apply for work in a different industry. What will they say on their application? If they are very high minded they will say, "I was fired from my last position". It isn't a lie to say, "After leaving my last position, I decided to change careers". That is spin, and most people in oour society far from condemning it, would advise a young relative asking for advice on how to fill out their job application to use just such a spin. If, on the other hand, you don't believe that your political candidate is the best person for the position, why promote their election in the first place?

I quite agree with you that there are, or should be limits to the nastiness that folks say about others. Unfortunately, I have idea how that could be accomplished so long as people range from very honorable to very dishonorable. Civility is always in short supply, especially on things like politics and religion. While we can't do anything to curb thsoe who are constantly shouting filth and hatred about, say President Bush, we can and should control ourselves better. Its hard to read the endless BS spouted here by the Left and those who constantly find fault with the United States, and not respond in kind. Generally, I believe, the conservative faction at A2K is less prone to hatefull innuendo than the radical left.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2008 10:01 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
No Cyclop, Fox News has repeatedly been judged to be within a range of acceptable objectivity to the same degree as USA Today, US News and World Report, ABC, and a few others. Fox tilts a bit right; the others all left but to same same degree of center. What I'm referring to are the blatantly biased sources that make no pretense of objectivity--Salon.com, Daily Kos, Huffington Post, National Enquiror, and some others.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2008 10:05 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

No Cyclop, Fox News has repeatedly been judged to be within a range of acceptable objectivity to the same degree as USA Today, US News and World Report, ABC, and a few others. Fox tilts a bit right; the others all left but to same same degree of center. What I'm referring to are the blatantly biased sources that make no pretense of objectivity--Salon.com, Daily Kos, Huffington Post, National Enquiror, and some others.


Sure - but it isn't those sources which are reporting McCain lying in this case, but the media - including the ones you list as 'objective' and in the center. Shouldn't people listen to them when they report that? Isn't it wrong that the McCain camp says they don't care what the media says about the truth or lies of their ads?

Even Rove on Fox News today said that McCain had gone too far in his commercials and that many were not truthful. Isn't that a serious sign to you that something isn't right with his campaign?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  3  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2008 10:05 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cyclops, you are hopelessly blinded by your partisan prejudices.

I watch the news and read the stories, I just don't take them with the same degree of cupidity and seriousness you seem to. Instead of hanging on every bit of supposedly dirty laundry that is reported, I do try to stay focused on the few fundamentals I've talked about over and over again here for years. Politically I am certainly a Conservative, but not nearly as extreme as you probably think. I support the GOP, because I believe that its general political philosophy at this time is closer to what I value. The political philosophy I most cherish is Federalism. The principles of Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and the young Madison that got written into our Constitution are for me the essentials that have made this nation great. I only wish that the GOP, and the American People, more closely adhered to those Federalist principles.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2008 10:09 pm
@Asherman,
What Ash said here. Sure McCain has crossed some lines in his advertising, but no more than Obama has done. It has become the standard campaign of mudslinging, muck, and slime that all campaigns become sooner or later. I can it is far more likely that the truth will sink Obama or McCain than the lies. Unless Cyclop is smarter than the rest of the world--we'll leave that for another discussion--it is short sighted to believe that others aren't as tuned in and/or able to read and interpret this stuff as Cyclop is.

The difference may be that some are able to see it all, and not just that targeted at their own guy.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2008 10:12 pm
@Asherman,
Asherman wrote:

Cyclops, you are hopelessly blinded by your partisan prejudices.

I watch the news and read the stories, I just don't take them with the same degree of cupidity and seriousness you seem to. Instead of hanging on every bit of supposedly dirty laundry that is reported, I do try to stay focused on the few fundamentals I've talked about over and over again here for years. Politically I am certainly a Conservative, but not nearly as extreme as you probably think. I support the GOP, because I believe that its general political philosophy at this time is closer to what I value. The political philosophy I most cherish is Federalism. The principles of Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and the young Madison that got written into our Constitution are for me the essentials that have made this nation great. I only wish that the GOP, and the American People, more closely adhered to those Federalist principles.


Keep your accusations of partisan blindness to yourself, oh regurgitator of recycled pap.

Ash, you said this:

Quote:
The wise voter attaches little importance to mud slinging accusations of “lies” by figures in the opposing Party.


My point isn't that the Obama campaign is accusing McCain of lies. It's natural that those on the other side of the political spectrum would be skeptical of those claims. It's that the media, including many of the so-called 'neutral' sources and independent fact-checkers have been calling McCain a liar. He has been making factually untrue claims. Palin has been making factually untrue claims. Many of these are so boldly untrue as to be truly boggling. Shouldn't voters care about that?

You are conflating the media with the Obama campaign. This is unsurprising, as McCain's campaign does this as well. But they are not the same thing. And McCain is going to find that out to his peril if he keeps it up. I do not believe he will be able to support the attacks he has made when he has to debate Obama face to face. I believe he will be embarrassed publicly when called out on his perfidy.

Cycloptichorn
Asherman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 14 Sep, 2008 10:25 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Let me make this so clear that even you might see it.

There is no such thing as an unbiased media.

Why should I keep my opinions to myself, when you obviously feel free to make outrageous statements? I certainly am partisan and have never claimed otherwise, as some have done.

"Regurgitator of recycled pap"? I don't suppose that is a complete lie, since my opinions are drawn from stuff that I've read and studied over a lifetime. But that isn't the intention of your comment, is it? I'm pretty sure that what you meant to imply is that I don't think for myself, but only parrot the Party line. You don't know that for a fact, but you make an insinuation with the intention of insulting and smearing me because I don't agree completely with your own set of narrow prejudices and beliefs. That's spin, too.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 06:47 am
October Surprise?????????

Speaking of media, I'm seeing bits and pieces on the boards, mentioned on TV this morning, and this in the NY Post today:

So far I would prefer this to be collaborated by additional sources before we detrmine that it is reported accurately, but would this qualify as an October surprise if it turns out that Obama is so callous, dishonest/hypocritical re his true motives--dare we say feigned indignation?--of our involvement in Iraq?

Quote:
WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/
obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm?page=0
Note: copy and paste link - had to put it in like this to avoid stretching the page.

This is from USA Today one year ago:
Quote:
"The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year -- now," Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama plans to say this afternoon, according to excerpts sent to reporters this morning by his campaign.

"Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq and there never was," Obama will say in a speech at Ashford University in Clinton, Iowa.

He will call for the pullout of combat forces to be completed by the end of 2008.

"Our drawdown should proceed at a steady pace of one or two brigades each month," he plans to say. "If we start now, all of our combat brigades should be out of Iraq by the end of next year."

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/09/obama-will-call.html
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 06:58 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:



http://startnow72.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/fox-news-logo.jpg




The least biased network on the air!

H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 07:09 am
@H2O MAN,
ABC EDITS THE PALIN INTERVIEW IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE PALIN LOOK BAD.

THE BOLD & UNDERLINED PARTS WERE EDITED OUT OF THE INTERVIEW

ABC IS A BIASED, LEFT WING NETWORK.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2008 07:32 am
Interesting H2O. If Levin is reporting that accurately, you would think Charlie Gibson would be a bit more careful of his professional reputation maybe?

I thought the following to be really funny:

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/lb0912extra_cd.jpg
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/28/2021 at 03:02:40