I meant actual independents.
You, sir, are a fucking idiot. Let met count the ways:
- I was not defending McCain.
- McCain is not “my boy.”
- And then, after all that, you actually agreed with what I said. Jesus.
- I’ve already acknowledged that.
This is pretty standard SDMB stuff, ISTM. McCain’s camp is lying. How do we know? Because it is an absolute given that McCain’s camp could not possibly have heard what they said they did. Why is that? Because they said they heard it, and we all know they’re liars. How do we know they’re liars? Didn’t you hear me? I just told you the lie they spread about hearing what Obama was planning to say. (Repeat until everyone tires of the thread or until the election is over, whichever comes first.)
Rand Rover is absolutely right. You want to deride the preemptive statement, before Obama actually said it as a poor strategy? Fine. That doesn’t by definition make it a lie. Diogenes, by the way, the fact that Obama didn’t ultimately say it does not by definition turn this into a lie. That just doesn’t make sense.
It’s a minor point, and it makes people apoplectic, absolutely refusing to make the most minor concession to common-sense semantics. I have never seen a board like this, with such a propensity to rage at the “lies” one sees from the opponent, but an absolute blind eye for any misstatement from one’s own guy. It’s really pretty amusing.
Serious question: If ‘lie’ is too strong a word, would ‘fantasy’ suffice?
Was that really a serious question? OK, I’ll assume it is. No, it is equally an unsupported supposition that does not, by simply saying it, rule out the possibility that the McCain camp actually heard what they said they did.
Heard it from who?
If they’re going to claim they “heard” it, they have a responsibility to say who they heard it from. If not, then this becomes a game where one side can say anything it wants about the other as long as it uses the magic words, “we heard…”
Stratocaster:
Let me ask a simple question: do you have any evidence that the McCain camp “heard” what they claimed to have heard?
I don’t know who they heard it from. If they’re protecting a source of info, why would they reveal the person’s name? And you’re right that a liar might use such a ruse to obscure his lie. That is NOT the same as saying that anyone who says they heard something is lying.
Mr. Svinlesha, the answer is no. So if I can only say that I assume it is true, or that I don’t know for certain. I would be wrong to assert it must be true.
So you’re not partisan, Rand Rover, you’re merely a nitpicking pedant. Gotcha.
Best comment ever.
You’ve hit the nail on the head here Stratocaster. And ironically you’ve also explained why we really should shout LIAR! from the rooftops.
It’s because this “shading of the truth” has been the modus operandi for far, far too long. Politicians count on the public and/or media “assuming it must be true”. - “well, we don’t know for certain”, they’ll say… “better report both sides”.
NO! We must start calling them LIARS! I’m really sorry if this offends pedantic nitpickers, but you’ve gotta break some eggs to make an elitist egg white omelette with gruyere cheese.
Euphonious, you’re making my point. If it’s possible they’re lying, we should call them liars–is that about right?
Madame Cleo?
Or he might have waited until Obama actually said something before trying to cover the little turd he left on the campaign trail.
It is making a statement one knows to be false, or making a statement one has no good reason to believe to be true with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. For instance, the statement “Rand Rover is an embezzler” would be an example of a lie of the latter type, as is the statement under discussion in this thread.
If I had it to do again, I would change my thread title to “preemptive outrage” and avoid the semantic quibbling overwhether it was a “lie.”
So let me just change the definition of the McCain doctrine to “preemptive outrage” now.
Well, now that you put it that way, yeah, I agree, what a dick. 
So, since you can’t rule out the possibility that I heard somebody say “Stratocaster goes around sniffing little girls’ bicycle seats”, then I have free license to say “I heard that Stratocaster goes around sniffing little girls’ bicycle seats”? :rolleyes:
I would say that if it is highly likely they are lying, we should call them liars. In this particular case, I believe it is extremely likely that McCain’s camp were lying - that is, they knew for an absolute fact that Obama was not going to say any such thing, but they planned on sticking their comment out there because they knew that a non-discerning media just prints what they are given.
Why not? They claimed they’d “heard” it somewhere. Where? Tell us. Why was it even necessary to claim that they had a mystery source? A simple “Should Obama’s campaign choose to distort this event…” would have sufficed. If McCain wants to put words in Obama’s mouth, he should be prepared to give citations.
If the last administration should have taught us anything, it’s that these sorts of claims should never be taken at face value. When Obama’s campaign steps up and claims “they’ve heard” that McCain is going to accuse him of being a secret mime, people should respond the same way. “You lie, Obama campaign. You lie so bad with your magic psychic future vision.”