Another day, another lie from Palin/McCain

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

As I said, filling out a single questionaire that said he would support a ban twelve years ago, and then saying he never support an all out ban of handguns is a bit misleading.  Luckily, unlike your guy, he isn't run campaign ads or making campaign speeches on this issue.

So even though he said that he NEVER favored an all out ban on handguns when he has explicitly stated so, with it recorded in written form isn't a lie?  His statements were and are unambiguous.  I think in the legal world that's called impeachable evidence.

quote:
Really, are you an attorney?  You understand that state law and federal law are two different things.  The exact same language in a state law and a federal law can result in completely different outcomes, because they are governed by different constitutions and different laws.  Obama explains that his vote against the 2003 act was based on the failure to include a provision that specified it would not interfere with Illinois abortion laws.  In 2005, the Illinois legislature did finally pass the bill, once it included language that specifically excluded its affect on ILLINOIS law.

First.  Let me thank you in advance for the Media Matters link.  Jesus Christ, would you like me to post something from Worldnetdaily for you?

This is not a matter of State vs Federal interpretation.  This is AGAIN, a simple matter of his words and their plain meaning.  He said that he would have voted for the Federal version of the bill.  He was presented with the Federal version of the bill and voted against it.

This is what common folks call a "lie"

quote:
Remember, a lie is an assertion of fact that you know to be incorrect.

Yes.  He said he would have voted for the Federal bill.  He was presented with the Federal bill and voted against it.  Ergo a "lie" on his part.

quote:
I understand that you don't support a woman's right to control her own body.  But we are discussing LIES here.  Even if you don't agree with his explanation, that doesn't mean he lied. (I wouldn't cite to Planned Parenthood as proof of his claim, but only cite to it to prove he had justification for his statement, and therefore it cannot be a lie).

Drop the nonsequitor bulls%it.  Whether I support abortion or not has nothing to do with the plain meaning of his statements and the fact that he can't seem to take a consistent position on this issue.

quote:In the future, you might try citing to some legitimate sources instead of the Right to Life Council and some editorial.

You are so disingenuous.  You know damned well that the right to life council link I presented you was simply a PDF version of the bills side by side.  I did not provide you with an editorial from them.

It's amazing you can't spot a blatant lie right in front of your face because you're quite adept at telling them yourself.

[pmcalk]

Geez, IP, calm down.  I know your guy not doing so well these days, but there is no reason to start attacking people.  Oh, right—that's what you/your candidate does when losing an argument.

I don't think I know you, IP, but I really hope that I never mistakenly hire you as an attorney.  You haven't actually provided me with a source for Obama's full statement, but based upon what you are saying, he said he would support the federal bill.  I was trying to be nice about citing to the Right to Life Council.  Your source doesn't say what you say it says.  It is a comparison of two different Illinois bills from different years.  As a lawyer, it is really important to check your sources.  Since you haven't provided a link to the federal bill, I cannot say for certain that the two bills were identical in wording.  However, it is irrelevant because to be the same bills they must have the same result.  According to several sources, they did not.  Sorry you were so offended at my citing MediaMatters, but as I explained to you, I wasn't citing to them for the truth of the matter asserted.  I simply offered the explanation from Obama's point of view.  You can disagree, but you must prove that Obama knew it to be wrong in order to prove he lied.  Obama said he supported the federal bill; to be a lie, he must have voted against a bill that would have provided the exact same protections as the federal bill.  His position is that the state bill did not.

IP, we are not that stupid.  Everyone knows that these "born alive" bills were pushed by right to life groups in an attempt to erode Roe v. Wade.  Killing a baby was already illegal in Illinois.  Obama was right to be suspicious of the bill.  When language was included to immunize Illinois abortion regulation from the bill, Obama supported it.  Ironically, right to life groups opposed it.  I guess they don't really care about infanticide, but only about eroding a woman's right to control her body.

I understand your strategy—you are attacking Obama because you have no way of defending your candidate.  Your candidate who lied once again on The View.  And Palin, who lied about her teleprompter malfunctioning, and who is refusing to cooperate with the abuse of power investigation (the one she previously welcomed because she has nothing to hide).

[Crash Daily]

I would welcome the federal investigation until the corrupt thugs in the Democratic Party got ahold of it, to make political hay and distort facts. I've seen your Parties Communist tactics in action before. You guys NEVER stop investigating, even when there is nothing to investigate. You have constant meaningless, time consuming investigations of Republicans going at all times. You destroy people WITH the investigations. It's a political tactic you've been using since Clinton took office. Once she cooperates, that investigation will go on through her entire Vice Presidency. You're a bunch of dogs.

I'm Crash daily and I approve this message.

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by Crash Daily

I would welcome the federal investigation until the corrupt thugs in the Democratic Party got ahold of it, to make political hay and distort facts. I've seen your Parties Communist tactics in action before. You guys NEVER stop investigating, even when there is nothing to investigate. You have constant meaningless, time consuming investigations of Republicans going at all times. You destroy people WITH the investigations. It's a political tactic you've been using since Clinton took office. Once she cooperates, that investigation will go on through her entire Vice Presidency. You're a bunch of dogs.

I'm Crash daily and I approve this message.

yet again another neocon slings the oh-so-dreaded "C" word around.

Like I've said, where there's smoke, there's likely some fire.  And let's remember, the media found out about this first.  Now that McCain is no longer the media darling, he's *****ing and moaning about it.

And let's remember, before she was made the veep pick, she AGREED to co-operate with the investigation.  Now the campaign cronies say 'sorry, but no'.

This stinks to high heaven.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk


Geez, IP, calm down.  I know your guy not doing so well these days, but there is no reason to start attacking people.  Oh, right—that's what you/your candidate does when losing an argument.

I don't think I know you, IP, but I really hope that I never mistakenly hire you as an attorney.  You haven't actually provided me with a source for Obama's full statement, but based upon what you are saying, he said he would support the federal bill.  I was trying to be nice about citing to the Right to Life Council.  Your source doesn't say what you say it says.  It is a comparison of two different Illinois bills from different years.  As a lawyer, it is really important to check your sources.  Since you haven't provided a link to the federal bill, I cannot say for certain that the two bills were identical in wording.  However, it is irrelevant because to be the same bills they must have the same result.  According to several sources, they did not.  Sorry you were so offended at my citing MediaMatters, but as I explained to you, I wasn't citing to them for the truth of the matter asserted.  I simply offered the explanation from Obama's point of view.  You can disagree, but you must prove that Obama knew it to be wrong in order to prove he lied.  Obama said he supported the federal bill; to be a lie, he must have voted against a bill that would have provided the exact same protections as the federal bill.  His position is that the state bill did not.

IP, we are not that stupid.  Everyone knows that these "born alive" bills were pushed by right to life groups in an attempt to erode Roe v. Wade.  Killing a baby was already illegal in Illinois.  Obama was right to be suspicious of the bill.  When language was included to immunize Illinois abortion regulation from the bill, Obama supported it.  Ironically, right to life groups opposed it.  I guess they don't really care about infanticide, but only about eroding a woman's right to control her body.

I understand your strategy—you are attacking Obama because you have no way of defending your candidate.  Your candidate who lied once again on The View.  And Palin, who lied about her teleprompter malfunctioning, and who is refusing to cooperate with the abuse of power investigation (the one she previously welcomed because she has nothing to hide).

I'm not wasting any more time on you.  I provided you quotes from Obama on the born alive bills taken from interviews.  Why would it mater if I provided you more that you're going to ignore?  I presented EXACT quotations from Obama on banning handguns and you DISMISSED them.

This debate is not about polcy details, i.e. whether the born alive bill errodes RvW.  It's about your presidential candidate who contradicts his own explicit statements.

quote:to be a lie, he must have voted against a bill that would have provided the exact same protections as the federal bill.

That would be wonderful if that was what he said, but that's not the case.  You can't play monday morning quarterback and reinvent his quotes.  

Can we not take your candidate's word at face value or must we run everything he says through Pmcalk's Obama-to-Bullsh$t translator?

[pmcalk]

IP, I agree that it may be best for you to just give up at this point, since you seem incapable of proving your point.  For the record, you never did provide me with Obama's quote--just a snippet from a right wing editorial.  You never provided a copy of the bill.  Just repeating "he lied" does not prove anything.

Meanwhile, your VP candidate's lying has become pathological.  She's not even lying about stuff that matters.  Today, in her "interview" with Hannity, she said when she was asked to be VP for McCain, she first consulted with her family and took a vote.  Yet, just last week in her interview Gibson, she said she didn't "blink" when asked to be VP.  And when her husband was interviewed on Fox, her husband said that he kept her appointment a secret from the kids, and told them they were going on a surprise trip.

Which story is true?  I know that the Republicans love to create narratives about their candidates--instead of offering anything of substance--but you've got to stick with the same narrative.

And that's not even getting into the three different versions she's provided for firing her public safety commissioner.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

IP, I agree that it may be best for you to just give up at this point, since you seem incapable of proving your point.  For the record, you never did provide me with Obama's quote--just a snippet from a right wing editorial.  You never provided a copy of the bill.  Just repeating "he lied" does not prove anything.

Meanwhile, your VP candidate's lying has become pathological.  She's not even lying about stuff that matters.  Today, in her "interview" with Hannity, she said when she was asked to be VP for McCain, she first consulted with her family and took a vote.  Yet, just last week in her interview Gibson, she said she didn't "blink" when asked to be VP.  And when her husband was interviewed on Fox, her husband said that he kept her appointment a secret from the kids, and told them they were going on a surprise trip.

Which story is true?  I know that the Republicans love to create narratives about their candidates--instead of offering anything of substance--but you've got to stick with the same narrative.

And that's not even getting into the three different versions she's provided for firing her public safety commissioner.

..ha,ha, good one.
Did her contract say "...of voting age..." in it anywhere?

That's what I do, whenever there's really BIG family decisions to make, I round up the kids....especially the babies since it's their future.

Do you suppose she meant 'her' family....husband, brothers, sisters, parents...?

Naw, it was a lie.

You guys are digging pretty hard to find something to hook on. How 'bout giving it a rest and talk issues?

In fact, your energy would better be spent on local issues since the Presidential race is all but a done deal in this State.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

IP, I agree that it may be best for you to just give up at this point, since you seem incapable of proving your point.  For the record, you never did provide me with Obama's quote--just a snippet from a right wing editorial.  You never provided a copy of the bill.  Just repeating "he lied" does not prove anything.

Meanwhile, your VP candidate's lying has become pathological.  She's not even lying about stuff that matters.  Today, in her "interview" with Hannity, she said when she was asked to be VP for McCain, she first consulted with her family and took a vote.  Yet, just last week in her interview Gibson, she said she didn't "blink" when asked to be VP.  And when her husband was interviewed on Fox, her husband said that he kept her appointment a secret from the kids, and told them they were going on a surprise trip.

Which story is true?  I know that the Republicans love to create narratives about their candidates--instead of offering anything of substance--but you've got to stick with the same narrative.

And that's not even getting into the three different versions she's provided for firing her public safety commissioner.

..ha,ha, good one.
Did her contract say "...of voting age..." in it anywhere?

That's what I do, whenever there's really BIG family decisions to make, I round up the kids....especially the babies since it's their future.

Do you suppose she meant 'her' family....husband, brothers, sisters, parents...?

Naw, it was a lie.

You guys are digging pretty hard to find something to hook on. How 'bout giving it a rest and talk issues?

In fact, your energy would better be spent on local issues since the Presidential race is all but a done deal in this State.

Ha, ha...Her kids are old enough to breed, marry and fight in the service. Isn't that old enough to be briefed on actions that will affect the rest of their lives?

We continue to try to enlighten people who might read about ambition and hypocrisy in politics because some of them can still be saved. Its a long struggle in Okieville but even if we can save one...

Besides, forums are read, (monitored) by others outside our province. That internet thing don'cha know.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

IP, I agree that it may be best for you to just give up at this point, since you seem incapable of proving your point.  For the record, you never did provide me with Obama's quote--just a snippet from a right wing editorial.  You never provided a copy of the bill.  Just repeating "he lied" does not prove anything.

Meanwhile, your VP candidate's lying has become pathological.  She's not even lying about stuff that matters.  Today, in her "interview" with Hannity, she said when she was asked to be VP for McCain, she first consulted with her family and took a vote.  Yet, just last week in her interview Gibson, she said she didn't "blink" when asked to be VP.  And when her husband was interviewed on Fox, her husband said that he kept her appointment a secret from the kids, and told them they were going on a surprise trip.

Which story is true?  I know that the Republicans love to create narratives about their candidates--instead of offering anything of substance--but you've got to stick with the same narrative.

And that's not even getting into the three different versions she's provided for firing her public safety commissioner.

Wow.  Again, you play loose and fast with the quotes and blatantly make up things. Yet you accuse others of lying...

Nowhere in Mr. Palin's interview does he say that the kids weren't previously informed that she was being considered for the veep spot.  Nor does it say that they weren't involved in the decision making process.

He said that the final decision was not communicated to them and it was to be a surprise.  Here are his words:

quote:
And then -- so I was tasked to have our kids ready in case she got the nod. And so I'm deciding -- you know, and you can't tell anybody. You can't tell the kids where you're going. And at that time, I didn't have any communication with Sarah. And so what do I do, you know? I can't tell the kids at night. They'll be up all night on their phones. You know, Well, I might go somewhere tomorrow.

So this was Thursday morning. I wake them up at 5:00 o'clock in the morning, and I said, OK, hey, we're going on a surprise trip to celebrate your mom and I's anniversary, 20th anniversary. So give me your cell phones. Well, why do you want my cell phone? Because I know you're going to call people, and you might call mom and ask what's going on.

You're reading between the lines and making up facts to suit your anti-Palin fantasies.

[tim huntzinger]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

IP, I agree that it may be best for you to just give up at this point, since you seem incapable of proving your point.  For the record, you never did provide me with Obama's quote--just a snippet from a right wing editorial.  You never provided a copy of the bill.  Just repeating "he lied" does not prove anything.

Meanwhile, your VP candidate's lying has become pathological.  She's not even lying about stuff that matters.  Today, in her "interview" with Hannity, she said when she was asked to be VP for McCain, she first consulted with her family and took a vote.  Yet, just last week in her interview Gibson, she said she didn't "blink" when asked to be VP.  And when her husband was interviewed on Fox, her husband said that he kept her appointment a secret from the kids, and told them they were going on a surprise trip.

Which story is true?  I know that the Republicans love to create narratives about their candidates--instead of offering anything of substance--but you've got to stick with the same narrative.

And that's not even getting into the three different versions she's provided for firing her public safety commissioner.

Wow.  Again, you play loose and fast with the quotes and blatantly make up things. Yet you accuse others of lying...

Nowhere in Mr. Palin's interview does he say that the kids weren't previously informed that she was being considered for the veep spot.  Nor does it say that they weren't involved in the decision making process.

He said that the final decision was not communicated to them and it was to be a surprise.  Here are his words:

quote:
And then -- so I was tasked to have our kids ready in case she got the nod. And so I'm deciding -- you know, and you can't tell anybody. You can't tell the kids where you're going. And at that time, I didn't have any communication with Sarah. And so what do I do, you know? I can't tell the kids at night. They'll be up all night on their phones. You know, Well, I might go somewhere tomorrow.

So this was Thursday morning. I wake them up at 5:00 o'clock in the morning, and I said, OK, hey, we're going on a surprise trip to celebrate your mom and I's anniversary, 20th anniversary. So give me your cell phones. Well, why do you want my cell phone? Because I know you're going to call people, and you might call mom and ask what's going on.

You're reading between the lines and making up facts to suit your anti-Palin fantasies.

Alaska's 'first dude' was on Gretta's show and he made it sound like it was a total surprise, having the little party aminals hand over their cell phones so as not to let anyone know they were leaving the state.

'Sarah Palin wears less makeup than John Edwards and is twice the woman he is.'

[iplaw]

Yes.  The ANNOUNCEMENT was a surprise.  That's all he said.  He gave NO indications as to whether or not they had been informed that she was being considered or whether they had had any conversations with the kids about her being considered.

The details matter.

[Conan71]

Of course the Dims have long since forgotten about a corrupt little Governor from Arkansas they once were in love with.  That was different, right?

[iplaw]

Lies are only important to you when you THINK the other guy is telling them.  According to pmcalk, everything Palin ever says is a lie, and she's not above twisting people's words or interpolating the data to prove it to you!

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Of course the Dims have long since forgotten about a corrupt little Governor from Arkansas they once were in love with.  That was different, right?

If you're talking about experience on a gubernatorial/executive level, it's apples and oranges.  She's had 2 years.  Clinton had 11 through both terms as governor.  Plus, he had two years as Arkansas' AG.  So he did have some executive experience, as well as judicial.

Plus, the Little Rock metro area is arguably larger in population than the entire state of Alaska.

But don't let facts get in the way here.

It amuses me that a guy 8 years removed from office still pisses many republicans off after that time.  I don't see a whole lot of Dems lamenting the Reagan years with the same vitriol I see from many Repubs.

I'll leave Conan off that list though, because he did refer to him as 'the most productive' President in recent memory, if I recall seeing that post correctly.  Please correct me if I'm wrong; I have about 20 windows open already.

[]

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Hoss

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Of course the Dims have long since forgotten about a corrupt little Governor from Arkansas they once were in love with.  That was different, right?

If you're talking about experience on a gubernatorial/executive level, it's apples and oranges.  She's had 2 years.  Clinton had 11 through both terms as governor.  Plus, he had two years as Arkansas' AG.  So he did have some executive experience, as well as judicial.

Plus, the Little Rock metro area is arguably larger in population than the entire state of Alaska.

But don't let facts get in the way here.

It amuses me that a guy 8 years removed from office still pisses many republicans off after that time.  I don't see a whole lot of Dems lamenting the Reagan years with the same vitriol I see from many Repubs.

I'll leave Conan off that list though, because he did refer to him as 'the most productive' President in recent memory, if I recall seeing that post correctly.  Please correct me if I'm wrong; I have about 20 windows open already.

[]

President Clinton doesn't piss me off.

I believe my statement was "one of the most effective Presidents in history".

I'm simply pointing to the fact that a corrupt governor from Arkansas with no foreign policy, energy, or big finance experience, (he was admittedly weak on the environment) was perfectly acceptible as the head of the ticket in 1992 to Democrats.  He brought no unique skill sets from Arkansas to the federal level other than excellent political skills as defined by his personality.

Palin has a few skirmishes which are being desperately twisted into "scandals" at best "corruption" at worst.  Clinton most definitely had been involved in some seriously shady deals.  Using the libtard logic being applied to Palin, Clinton wasn't qualified to be President either, yet he will go down in history as one of the best.

Clinton couldn't shoot a moose either. []