I mentioned Maxine Waters and Hillary Clinton.
You can’t put a thread in GD and then ask people not to debate.
No, it is a knowing falsehood, given that the specific figures mentioned in Obama’s speech came from the CAP “analysis” and not the WSJ article. And it’s hard to agree that they took the CAP analysis in good faith, based on both their failure to cite it directly and their knowledge that CAP is:
Either fact alone could push it into honest mistake territory. Had they cited the CAP study, then it’s simply a case of relying on a biased source; their decision to hide the actual origins of the figures they attributed to McCain and their knoweldge that the actual source of those figures was a strongly Democrat-leaning institution is simply indefensible.
The problem here was actually the context, which is missing here. Did you read the article? The refusal to “commit to a meeting” with Zapatero was, first of all, a direct contradiction to statements McCain made in April stating that he wanted to normalize relations with Spain, which the Bush administration was treating frostily because they withdrew their troops from Iraq.
But more importantly, in the context of the interview, McCain named Zapatero as leader of a country that is at odds with the ideals and goals of America. The interviewer sought to clarify, ensuring that they were speaking of the same person, the leader of Spain, and McCain repeated the sentiment more than once.
Whether McCain was having a senior moment or was confusing Zapatero and the Zapatistas or what, he dissed the leader of Spain, a democratic European country, member of NATO and a country that counts itself our ally even if it wasn’t willing to continue to put its citizens in harm’s way for Bush’s Iraq folly. And given the nature of that slight, quibbling over the semantics of “refused to commit to a meeting” and “refused to meet” is rather beside the point. McCain either didn’t know who Zapatero was and covered badly, or worse, thought (thinks?) that Spain is an anti-American nation. Either way it was a massive foreign policy blunder, and from the candidate who was portraying himself as the only person in the race with notable foreign policy experience.
No. Whether or not it was a “massive foreign policy blunder” (which I don’t think it was, but whatever) is irrelevant wrt Biden’s lie. McCain did not say he wouldn’t meet with Zapatero, and he may have had very good reasons for not committing in advance to such a meeting. Biden, of all people, should know that. There is nothing wrong with not making a campaign promise you are not certain you will fulfill. Maybe that IS something the Biden doesn’t understand.
In other words, you’re not going to participate in the thread; just pretend to participate so you can say later that your evidence is simply dismissed outright. Lame.
Good to know, though, in response to the OP, you really got nothing.
As if Bush’s desertion hadn’t been a story for years already at that point.:rolleyes: You really do continue to think that it’s all based on those documents, do you? 
Cite for it being intentional instead of foolish, please, btw.
Cite. She fired the Wasilla librarian for refusing to.
Cite for any such poll? What she did say was far, far dumber. Fey did her the favor of rephrasing it in a proper English sentence.
If you could ever show that you know what the word “lie” even means, you could say that with some shred of credibility. But this is just threadshitting again, innit?
Your cite just says that the librarian was fired, nothing about it being because she wouldn’t ban any books. Also, your cite says:
So, it looks like no books were banned.
BTW, linking the question the librarian was asked about banning books with her resignation ignores the fact there could be any number of reasons for her firing. Maybe Palin didn’t like the way she dressed. We’ll never know.
I think you know better, John.
Okay, maybe you can help Shodan further, by being the first to provide a cite of an accusation that Palin banned books, since that is the “lie” he alleges was told by some “prominent Democrat”. Do please provide the same level of scrutiny to all such statements. A level of scrutiny that would reveal the lack of need to report that Palin’s efforts in fact fell short of completing the act book-banning, something I had already stipulated.
I don’t see how it being a knowing falsehood follows from the fact that they cited CAP and not the WSJ article CAP was analyzing. (Also, why the scare quotes? Do you think it requires a sham study to show that $1.2 trillion in cuts will require some cuts to benefits?) They relied on the WSJ article for the premise of their argument (McCain plans massive cuts), and the CAP analysis for the conclusion that they believe follows from that premise (such cuts require benefit/eligibility cuts). They failed to cite the source behind the numbers in the conclusion.
Indefensible? Perhaps. I’m willing to assume, as you do, that they deliberately chose not to cite the CAP report in addition to the WSJ article because people trust the WSJ when it comes to claims about the GOP. I think, despite the well-worn phrase, we should assume malice before ignorance.
But a knowing falsehood? I just don’t see how. I guess if you read the citation as them saying, “everything we say in this ad is taken word for word from this article,” then you’re right that they lied. But that’s just not how citations work. People make inferences from the information contained in citations, or provide a citation for part of the information provided all the time. Indeed, there’s a whole system for doing so in more formal settings (e.g. citation signals). Perhaps political advertisements ought to use such signals, and they should have inserted a cf. or see, but I think you’d be asking a little much at that point. The article formed the basis of the claims in the ad; it was the information in the article about McCain’s plan that led to the conclusion that it would cut benefits. It’s just that they failed to cite CAP for those numbers, which could lead some viewers to conclude that the information was all contained in the one cited source. Misleading, but not a falsehood.
The reason I thought the ad was misleading is that both the ad and Obama used the phrase “X plan would do Y.” There’s some ambiguity in that phrase that makes it misleading. It could mean X plan would have Y consequence, or Y is the intended consequence of X plan. The language conflates those two, and the second one if stated directly would indeed be indefensible. But the statement is neither literally false nor false in its most common meaning, which would seem to be one required element of a knowing falsehood.
I don’t know of any prominent Democrat who did. But you went one step further and claimed you had a cite showing that she did ban books. She didn’t.
Who actually accused her of banning books? Let’s see an actual name and quote before we start evaluating its accuaracy.
Goddammit,John, try reading posts before you reply to them, okay? :rolleyes:
Who are you alleging told this “lie?” This quote was from one of Tina Fey’s SNL sketches, not from a “prominent Democrat,” and it was a joke, though it was a satire of something Palin actually did say. Are you going to start counting SNL sketches as “lies by prominent Democrats” now?
Just to play devil’s advocate for a moment: Where are the people putting alleged Republican lies to this kind of close analysis?
What alleged Republican lies should be put to close analysis? I gurantee, any thread dicussing any alleged lie by any politician will feature close scrutiny.
Why don’t you direct that at Elvis, since he’s the one who accused her of banning books and started evaluating its accuracy?
I already said I didn’t know of any prominent Dems who said she banned books.
WTF? I read your post, and corrected an inaccuracy. Don’t post inaccurate info if you don’t want to have to deal with people correcting you.
I didn’t see Elvis accuse her of banning books. He accused her of trying to fire a librarian for resisting Palin’s desire to ban books, which I believe is factually accurate.
OK, my bad. But the cite does not prove why the librarian was fired. If she resisted banning books and yet Palin never actually banned any, then it doesn’t make sense that she was fired for resisting to ban. There could be any number of reason the librarian was fired.
What you believe to be factually accurate is of no consequence without any decent evidence. If she was so intent on banning books, why didn’t any get banned?
Because of the bad public reaction she got from trying to shitcan a popular and well-liked librarian. She overreached and had to back down. Public support for the librarian was so strong that it forced Palin to withdraw her attempt to even fire her.
Also, she didn’t ban books because she couldn’t. She had no legal authority to do so. That doesn’t alter the fact that she was too stupid to know that she couldn’t do it when she first became mayor, and that she tried to pressure a librarian into doing it for her.