cicerone imposter wrote:I think that McCain's vulnerabilities won't mean much, cause he's the only GOP candidate.
Lying again, ci. Huckabee is still running, last I heard. And isn't Ron Paul still in the race too?
okie wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:ican, You are a hopeless numbskull.
A numbskull does not come up with brilliant lying scales as icann has done, ci, so I disagree. I think icann's skull is not numb at all, and at least he has a skull, do you? He has rightly pointed out that McCain is quite a bit worse than Washington, but probably only about half as bad as Clinton and Obama. I think he has it pretty well pegged.
You must be either deaf and/or dumb; the news all day has been about the McCain lie.
sozobe wrote:Seems like at least some lying is going on:
And then soz, the Reasonable One, adopted the Cycloptichorn standard of determining what is a lie and what is not a lie ... and the world would never be the same.
Huckabee may be "running," but he's a dead man walking.
So Tico, when a candidate says they didn't do something, and then evidence is presented that they did - it isn't a lie?
Talking Points Memo:
Quote:
Not Looking Good
Maybe they'd prefer to go back to the affair story?
When John McCain went before the press on Wednesday to deny having an affair with lobbyist Vicki Iseman, he also made a series of categorical denials about the non-sex, influence peddling part of the story. Only many or most of those claims now appear to be demonstrably false.
McCain said and his office later released a statement claiming that McCain hadn't met with anyone from either Paxson Communications (the broadcaster wanting the favors) or Alcalde & Fay (the lobby shop trying to get them the favors). Today, though, Newsweek's Michael Isikoff dug up a 2002 deposition in which McCain said that he had discussed the issue directly with Lowell Paxson, the head of Paxson Communications. Now the Post has asked Paxson himself, now retired, and he says, Yep, I met with McCain and asked him to write the letters. And he thinks he remembers Iseman being in the meeting too.
--Josh Marshall
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/179783.php
What would you consider a lie?
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:So Tico, when a candidate says they didn't do something, and then evidence is presented that they did - it isn't a lie?
Not necessarily. And I'm equal opportunity on this issue, and always have been.
cicerone imposter wrote:Huckabee may be "running," but he's a dead man walking.
How could he be walking if he is running, and how could he be running if he is dead? He looks just as alive as Ms. Clinton. Is she alive?
Ms Clinton still has a chance with Texas and Ohio, even though most pundits are saying her chances are slim. Where does Huckabee have a chance at this juncture?
okie wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:Huckabee may be "running," but he's a dead man walking.
How could he be walking if he is running, and how could he be running if he is dead? He looks just as alive as Ms. Clinton. Is she alive?
Your simple mind can't see the obvious. That's not my problem.
cicerone imposter wrote:Ms Clinton still has a chance with Texas and Ohio, even though most pundits are saying her chances are slim. Where does Huckabee have a chance at this juncture?
Huckabee has no chance, but he IS still running.
That directly contradicts YOUR earlier claim that
Quote:cause he's the only GOP candidate
when you were talking about McCain.
You then said
Quote:Huckabee may be "running," but he's a dead man walking.
So you even disproved your own original statement.
Yet you dont seem to be man (or woman) enough to admit that you either misspoke or just plain lied.
Now you are being held to the same standard you demand that others adhere to, so were you wrong about Huckabee, or did you lie on purpose, for your own reasons?
More inappropriate involvement on the behalf of McCain towards Mrs. Iseman.
Quote: In late 1998, Senator John McCain sent an unusually blunt letter to the head of the Federal Communications Commission, warning that he would try to overhaul the agency if it closed a broadcast ownership loophole.
The letter, and two later ones signed by Mr. McCain, then chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, urged the commission to abandon plans to close a loophole vitally important to Glencairn Ltd., a client of Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist. The provision enabled one of the nation's largest broadcasting companies, Sinclair, to use a marketing agreement with Glencairn, a far smaller broadcaster, to get around a restriction barring single ownership of two television stations in the same city.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/us/politics/23lobby.html?ref=us
McCain has already gotten himself in trouble. His 'denial' of the original story contained several lies. Now, it looks as if he has done a lot more work on behalf of this lady and her companies then originally thought.
Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter wrote:okie wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:Huckabee may be "running," but he's a dead man walking.
How could he be walking if he is running, and how could he be running if he is dead? He looks just as alive as Ms. Clinton. Is she alive?
Your simple mind can't see the obvious. That's not my problem.
Stranger things have happened, ci. What if McCain has a mild heart attack, or suffers from exhaustion on the campaign trail, after all he is no spring chicken? Or something worse than has come out so far then comes out on McCain. The point is, Huckabee and Paul are still running even though you said McCain is the only one running. And if Clinton loses Texas and Ohio, she is just about as dead as Huckabee. As of today, she may or may not win those states, but the momentum in the polls are in Obama's favor, and as every day passes, her strength wanes, unless she can do something spectacular or Obama stumbles, but it isn't happening yet.
I am just trying to keep you honest, which is virtually a full time job. Read MM, as he also is doing the same.
Cycloptichorn wrote:
McCain has already gotten himself in trouble. His 'denial' of the original story contained several lies. Now, it looks as if he has done a lot more work on behalf of this lady and her companies then originally thought.
Cycloptichorn
None of this is surprising, cyclops, but it pales in comparison to the Clinton corruption during virtually their entire lives. It is very mild, but it does dent the image that McCain has sought to portray and that many people have falsely believed.
okie wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:
McCain has already gotten himself in trouble. His 'denial' of the original story contained several lies. Now, it looks as if he has done a lot more work on behalf of this lady and her companies then originally thought.
Cycloptichorn
None of this is surprising, cyclops, but it pales in comparison to the Clinton corruption during virtually their entire lives. It is very mild, but it does dent the image that McCain has sought to portray and that many people have falsely believed.
Oh, I don't know if it's so mild. McCain has positioned himself as a reformer and someone who doesn't do business with special interests. That's clearly a lie. Cuts to the heart of his position. Expect to see a lot more of this in the general election - and, I would guess, we aren't quite at the bottom of the rabbit hole yet.
Cycloptichorn
My guess is McCain is a typical Washington politician, and certainly not as pure as the wind driven snow in regard to lobbyists and the like, contrary to the image he wishes to portray, however the man is not sinister and he is far from the Clintonistas, who have gotten where they are with secret investigators, kickbacks, intimidation of enemies, such as with the IRS, pardoning of terrorists, illegal foreign campaign money, and the list goes on. My point is very accurate, McCain is not anywhere near the level of corruption of the Clintons for example, but sadly McCain has sought to repeatedly make his whole campaign image to be something he isn't in my opinion. No crime in backroom deals, but he is a Washington insider, and he is just as tied in with lobbyists as many others in Washington, most likely. Which is not a crime if there is no quid pro quo, but nonetheless, McCain is very vulnerable on this issue because he has made it central to his image and campaign stategy.
McCain was not/is not the first choice of many of us. But as it seems a near certainty that he will be the nominee, the one question Republicans and conservatives will have to ask themselves is whether Hillary gets us closer to what this country needs in a leader, or the most liberal senator in Congress gets us closer to what this country needs in a leader, or whether McCain gets us closer to what this country needs in a leader.
From where I sit, it's a no brainer.
Foxfyre, your signature is too important to allow anyone to overlook it. I copy and post it with the emphasis it deserves:
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."
-- Benjamin Franklin 1776
Anyone else notice that ci refuses to retract his statement that McCain was the only repub candidate, even after he proved himself wrong?
from Tico's paste...
Quote:The other thing that's bothering me is this Barry Hussein Jr., guy.
Your integrity ain't improving.
