The point was Palin asked the librarian if the mayor had the authority to ban books. She told Palin she did not. The mayor had no such power . Then according to some, Palin fired her because she did not agree that Palin could , nor would she do it herself . I don’t think anyone ever said she actually banned books, But she proved she would be the kind of person who would want to. That is pretty damning by itself.
Let’s leave these kinds of comments out of this thread, please.
This is the crux of it right right here. According to the librarian in question, Palin broached the subject multiple times, always as hypotheticals (including “what if people picketed the library?”), then, when the librarian was steadfast is saying NFW would she ever be a party to banning books, Plain sent her a letter saying she was fired because she “didn’t show enough support” for Palin (and since when is political support for the mayor a criterion to be a public librarian?),but the essential point that Palin wanted to ban books is the point that really matters.
The claim that anyone accused Palin of actually banning books (a claim made by Palin herself recently) is a not only false, but is really only an attenpt to deflect attention away from the fact that it’s something she definitely WANTED to do.
I don’t want to come off like I’m trying to say that no prominent Democrtas lie about Republicans. I don’t have the slightest doubt that they do, but Sarah Palin’s feelers about the feasability of banning books is not a good example.
Diogenes, whatever you believe, that’s not what McCain said. He said a peaceful presence, assuming no U.S. casualties (akin to Germany), that served US interests–we could stay 100 years in such a scenario, as far as he was concerned. There was reason enough to stay in Germany, Kuwait, etc., though no war to fight, so your comment doesn’t make sense to me. There are often strategic reasons to maintain a peaceful US presence, and no shortage of examples where we did.
Again, arguing that you think that a peaceful presence is unlikely is a completely different debate. But what McCain actually said does NOT translate into “McCain wants 100 more years of war in Iraq.” Obama lied. This one isn’t tough, anyone can check out the actual comments.
Looking at the Politifact “Pants on Fire” listings, pretty much the only outrageous lies said by Democrats about Republicans on the list are that one, another Obama ad claiming that McCain agreed with some of Rush Limbaugh’s more extreme statements about immigration (McCain didn’t, but it’s ironic that the “lie” was that one right-winger agreed with an even more extreme right-winger), and Brian Schweitzer claiming that McCain’s energy policy relied solely on more drilling. There are also a few potshots from Biden - claiming that Giuliani was “underqualified” and that President Bush was “brain-dead”. The rest are either Republican lies against Democrats, some lies about Obama from the Clintons during the primaries, chain-emails (virtually all anti-Democrat/anti-liberal/anti-Obama) and some general statements from both sides on various issues.
In the slightly less egregious “False” category, it’s a little less obvious - there are a lot of falsehoods connected to the healthcare debate which are not necessarily targeted at a specific person and an assortment of potshots from pundits (and Sarah Palin). If we ignore Rachel Maddow (as I always do), a quick scan shows that the first Dem-against-Rep lie is on page 7, going back to campaign ads, with Obama again incorrectly ascribing views to McCain about various topics including some already mentioned in this thread.
Those are all the recent ones (and you can look at the “Barely True” ones yourself if you like). I’m not really interested in arguing about Vietnam-era lies, at least in this thread.
Having “pulled up the quotes on Youtube,” I’m going to have to agree with this assessment. It’s clearly a lie. This is the full context of McCain’s 100 year comment. Here’s the relevant quote:
It’s disingenuous to say that he wanted “war” for 100 years, when he specifically said he wants a presence in the region without casualties. That is *very *different than war.
I think you’ve found a lie, boytyperanma.
Do you, by any chance, have a quote that Obama said “McCain wants 100 more years of war in Iraq”? To this point, we only have your say-so that this is the case. A cite would be appreciated, particularly since you wish to delve into the nuance and meaning of McCain’s statements about 100 years in Iraq.
What about Howard Dean on page 3? He didn’t just lie about one Republican in particular, but about them in general when he said that Social Security and Medicare were passed without Republicans. The article points out that 81 House Republicans and 16 Republican Senators voted for SS and it passed by a wide margin in both houses; and, while Medicare didn’t fare as well against House Republicans, 50% of the Senate Republicans on the Finance Committee voted for it, ensuring Medicare became a reality.
I can’t imagine why Dean wouldn’t want today’s Republicans to know that so many of their predecessors supported these social programs.
I was scanning for comments aimed at specific people but if the OP wants to accept that one, I won’t quibble.
I’m not Stratocaster, obviously, but the first link in my post preceding yours not only contains two video clips of Obama making the “100 years of war” assertion, but also him defending what Meredith Viera (of the mainstream media’s *Today *show) generously refers to as a distortion. Here it is again. In fact, Politifact also deems it false.
Yes, this is the crux of it. These are Republicans, therefore the extremists are going to tie themselves into knots calling anything they say a ‘lie’.
We saw exactly that with the nonsense about Palin’s description of the Vice-President’s duties. She gave a description that was more more succinct and more accurate than Biden did. Unhesitatingly, the Usual Suspects labeled her description a lie and Biden’s as accurate.
Then stop trying to say it.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m a lawyer, not an economist. But that is the exact claim being made by the CAP analysis. For the purposes of this debate, does it really matter whether it is true if it is reasonable to believe it to be true and they did believe it in good faith?
No, the one you posted and that I responded to.
What was stupid about Palin’s description of the duties of the VP was that she erroneously claimed that the VP was “in charge of the Senate.” That is not true. The VP “presides” over the Senate only in the most ceremonial way.
Here’s the transcript of the Palinator performing at the VP debate:
Succinct? Accurate? You be the judge.
Her notion that the VP is supposed to strong arm the Senate into being “supportive of the President’s policies” (which I’m sure she believes applies only if the President is a Republican) is typical of her, and fucking terrifying. She’s such a classic narcissist, she’s digusting.
He didn’t say he wanted a pony, either.
For that not to be a lie, it would have to be either extremely foolish or extremely disingenuous. Which one do you accuse him of?
Well, no. She told a third grader that the VP is “in charge” of the the Senate, which is not all that off-base if you consider that to a grade school student would reasonably and simply equate “president” with "in charge. She was accurate, but imprecise, in that the VP is, constitutionally, President of the Senate.
Where she is wrong is in asserting, during the VP debate, that the Constitution gives the VP “more authority [than presiding over the Senate] if the vice president chooses to exert it in working with the Senate.” The Constitution does no such thing.
The VP is not “in charge” of the Senate in any sense. That is a factually false claim. The ceremonial powers granted by the Constitution do not amount to any kind of authority. The word “president” in this case is purely ceremonial. It does not confer executive authority.
Sorry, you lost me. I’m not talking about what McCain didn’t say, rather what he did say. He was very specific about wanting to maintain a presence similar to that in South Korea and Japan, which would not be engaged in war.
I do admit the likelihood of being able to maintain a peace-keeping force in the region with the explicit cooperation of not only the government, but the community as well, is slim to none. I also admit irritation that once again a Republican has erroneously conflated the Iraq war with the fight against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We are there because we decided to invade a sovereign nation for the express purpose of unseating a dictator who was, at the time, a thorn in our side.
I’m not claiming it’s not a lie. On the contrary, I find it oddly disappointing that Obama didn’t at try to qualify his statements or even hedge on what he “really” meant, indicating to me he knowingly perpetuated a falsehood. Then, challenged people to go look it up on youtube, which I did and then went :smack: on behalf of Obama.