During the campaign, Obama asserted that McCain wanted 100 more years of war in Iraq, a statement that a smart guy like him clearly knew was a false representation of McCain’s actual comments.
I wasn’t familiar with the events you mentioned (as I was with the Spanish incident), so I did a little research. It looks to me like your post misrepresents the facts of what happened, which are related in detail here and here.
You state that “the article said nothing like that,” which is false, since the article said the McCain plan would cut Medicare. Indeed, the title of the article is “McCain Plans Federal Health Cuts: Medicare, Medicaid Spending Would Be Reduced to Offset Proposed Tax Credit.” I don’t know how you managed to miss that.
You also state that the article “only contained a statement from a McCain spokesman saying all benefits would be maintained.” This is also false. The article states, “The McCain campaign hasn’t given a specific figure for the cuts, but didn’t dispute the analysts’ estimate.”
Ultimately, I think the ad is misleading. It relies on the selective quoting of a badly written WSJ article. But it is not, as you characterized it, a fiction invented from whole cloth. I would probably call it a lie, but I think my standard is a bit lower than yours, judging from your assertions in similar threads.
I understand the difference but as predicted almost every quote, if not all, put up have been argued. I’m looking to compile a list.
We can rate the intent and semantics of it later. If anyone has a driving desire to argue whether something is a lie or not at any point they are welcome to start their own thread on the subject. Start another great debate or throw up a poll saying rate this lie.
So far I kinda have to side with the right wingers of the board about the rabid nature of the left wingers of the board as many are proving they can not hold back their bias long enough to let this project develop.
McCain said he was willing to stay in Iraq for another 100 years. The defense that this was not the same as saying he wanted “war” is a thin one, since there would be no other reason to stay in Iraq for 100 years.
So far, there has been very little to “develop.” If you just want a list of conservative talking points about alleged Democratic “lies,” there are plenty of websites available.
Honest critique, and factual accuracy are not the same as “bias,” by the way, and if you don’t want disagreement, don’t start a thread in the debate forum.
For anybody that wants a cite for that Shinseki thing I mentioned here I have this one.(Or you can just check Wikipedia.)
http://www.factcheck.org/article275.html
Guess it’s just another right wing site.
Eh, that’s one’s kind of lame, but you can put it on the list, I guess. Shinseki really did say what Kerry claimed he said, but Kerry was apparently wrong about his retirement being “forced.” That may or may not have been an honest mistake on Kerry’s part, though.
So far we havr
No argument yet
subject of debate
Not relevant to the thread yet still being debated :smack:
being debated
lies aplenty but so far none targeting republicans quoted
no quotes from Democratic party officials
being debated
being debated
If I missed any let my know I’ll put up an updated list
This list is coming up pretty short. Bush was in office for 8 years I’ve been googling trying to find quoted lies about him and so far no luck anyone got anything?
Huh? Aren’t Bush’s lies by definition irrelevant to this thread about lies allegedly told by Democrats (unless, Bush was lying about being a Republican and is really a Democrat, obviously.)
It’s a flat out lie. That is not what McCain said. It’s not even a paraphrase. Period.
The difference between “won’t commit to sit down,” and “won’t sit down” is so trivial as to be insignificant. Calling it a “lie” is more of a mischaracterization that Biden’s own alleged mischaracterization.
If a Democrat told a lie about Bush it is relevant. Sadly most the things Democrats said about Bush have turned out to be true.
God, why am I not surprised by this? Kerry’s statement amounts to “Bush is so evil that when one of his generals (Shinseki) told him more troups he got rid of him because of it.” The point was that Bush was so into doing whatever it was he wanted that not only did he not listen to people but in this case actually got rid of somebody that told him something he didn’t want to hear and it didn’t even matter that it was one of the highest ranking generals around. The problem with the statement is it’s not true. (I don’t doubt Bush wasn’t listening to Shinseki but given that the guy was leaving in a few months that’s actually understandable.) The other problem is Kerry said it during a debate and you’d think given such a “damning” talking point he could have bothered to actually fact check it to make sure it was you know, actually correct.(I mean seriously the idea that instead of listening Bush fired people is a pretty serious charge.) Furthermore the fact that other Democrats have continued to use it even though it’s not actually true is also pretty disturbing. Here’s Nancy making the same accusation
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-november-30-2005/nancy-pelosi—2005
Note, it’s not her only charge against Bush but she has everything else she doesn’t even need to say it. (Especially since it’s not you know true.) Also on top of it she’s saying it a year later. So at this point she’s had more than enough time to check it out so it’s a lie.
Nope. Biden claimed McCain said something that he simply did not say. If we go by “degrees of difference”, then we’ll never have an objective standard of deciding what a lie is. I think the difference is significant simply because there is a difference.
Unless you can offer an objective way to quantify how significant a difference there has to be, then your argument is worthless.
McCain did say it. The two statements are essentially identical.
“The article” is the Wall Street Journal article which was referred to in the ad text. It says nothing about McCain cutting benefits; McCain’s plan was to cut out spending by reducing waste and overhead. As factcheck.org put it:
No. You are ignoring the fact that there are legitimate reasons, during a campaign, for not committing to do so certain things, including meeting with foreign leaders, even if you intend to do so or think you might do so. For that reason alone, there is a significant gap between not committing to a meeting and saying you won’t meet.
No, not thin at all, and Obama surely knew it. McCain specifically said a peaceful presence, similar to ones we’ve benefited from in other regions, would be acceptable, and he specifically noted a condition of no U.S. casualties as being necessary. You can argue whether that’s likely, but he specifically did NOT say he wanted 100 more years of war in Iraq, which is what Obama attributed to him. Anyone can check for themselves–McCain used simple English, nothing ambiguous.
This is the article. It says that McCain planned to cut $1.3 trillion over 10 years from the programs - a number which the author claims was not contradicted by the McCain campaign. According to the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, such a massive cut would require some cut to benefits or eligibility. Relying on that report without citing it (according to both CAP and factcheck.org), the ad claims that McCain’s plan to pay for his health care plan with Medicare/Medicaid cuts will require McCain to cut benefits.
Now, Obama’s ad cites the WSJ article and not the CAP analysis. That’s misleading, because the article only supports the claim that McCain plans to make massive cuts to Medicaid/Medicare. The lack of citation to CAP obscures the implicit argument the campaign is making, that a $1.3 trillion cut will necessitate cuts to benefits. But it’s not a lie in the sense of a knowing falsehood. The Obama ad talks about the consequences of the McCain plan, and the ad is making a good faith argument about what those consequences would be.
As I said, I think it is misleading, because obviously the crux of the argument is over whether $1.3 trillion could be cut from Medicare/Medicaid without cutting benefits. The ad could suggest that McCain has announced such a cut, rather than announced a plan that will necessitate such a cut. I’m fine calling that a lie, so long as we acknowledge the nature of the lie and put such things on a pretty wide spectrum. But my sense is that you’re standard for what qualifies as a lie is a bit higher than that.
No the bias is do to the fact you have yet to contribute any quotes yourself yet are eager to have quotes submitted by others discredited.
As there is much debate to be had on any given quote ‘great debates’ was the best choice among the options. I originally intended to put it in general questions but do not think it manage to remain there. If the moderators think it can survive in GQ I’d say put it there.
I anyone has a suggestion for a right wing site that has similar practices and expectations that we have come to accept on the dope I’d love a link.
My problem with going to various left wing sites is you can often find many claims of what Democrats have said but never any information citing where such things were said. Asking for a cite on a lie would likely result in me being labeled a socialist and dismissed.