Amazon.com Widgets

« Links With Your Coffee - Thursday | Main | Palin - Gibson Interview »

I Approve This Message




 

Comments

Yeah, McCain is a dishonest flip-flopper, but he plays a mean guitar:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggLnotDX6dU

Since the theme of the ad is "distortion," I was greatful for the defined word near the end.

I just wanted to share a video that I had been waiting to pop up on youtube:

John McCain gets Barackroll'd

This is strictly a silly comment. I hope McCain gives more appearances in front of blue and green screens.

Brilliant, Akira!

Norm, Thank you for all the work you're doing on your blog. I really admire your production values!

How meta - the video claiming distortion itself offers distortions!

On the sex education issue - The Obama ... oops, I mean 'New York' Times:

Mr. Obama voted for the bill in committee, where it passed, but it never came to a full and final vote. The proposal called for “age and developmentally appropriate” sex education

So ... sex education for kindergartners, exactly as McCain's ad claims.

The Times piece goes on to talk about how McCain 'distorted' Obama's intentions - but the McCain ad makes no statement of intent, it only states the facts about the bill and Obama's vote.

On Iran being 'tiny' and 'no threat', the video says that this is a distortion ... then Obama says those exact words.

Factcheck.org supports McCain's claim about the troops & cameras issue. Note that this video just offers a talking head saying "it's false!", then moves on.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/snubbing_wounded_troops.html

The pro/against troops bills things are just the makers of the video using the same tactics everyone employs - using the title of a bill to claim that a person is voting against what the title implies, when we all know bills rarely reflect their titles. Hypocritize much?

Everyone has some lobbyists in their campaign - including Obama:

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obamas_lobbyist_line.php

T. Boone fucking Pickens as a counterpoint? The guy wants to build WINDMILLS for Christ's sake, something even energy-policy-wonks say is irresponsible:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._Boone_Pickens

And Obama was against drilling for oil only before he was for it:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/08/obama-drilling.html

So yes, let's all spread 'the truth' by lying.

Taking specific words out of context degrades the person doing it. This time around, it's McCain.

Obama's comment on Iran is that it is a tiny country, which it is in GDP and also in the size and capability of its military.

Obama's full comment is that since Iran is tiny, we have no reason to avoid diplomatic relations with them, since we had relations with Russia who is much larger.

Is the full, true statement that much harder to understand?

The Times piece goes on to talk about how McCain 'distorted' Obama's intentions - but the McCain ad makes no statement of intent, it only states the facts about the bill and Obama's vote.

I didn't realize you were to stupid to understand advertisements.

On Iran being 'tiny' and 'no threat', the video says that this is a distortion ... then Obama says those exact words.

Yeah, they are his exact words, pulled out of the context in which he spoke them: an explicit comparison with the threat posed by the former Soviet Union. That’s called distortion, dumbshit.

That you think you’ve offered some kind of worthwhile refutation is amazing, but unsurprising in light of your this stupid claim:

Factcheck.org supports McCain's claim about the troops & cameras issue. Note that this video just offers a talking head saying "it's false!", then moves on.

factcheck.org offers its’ summary:

McCain's facts are literally true, but his insinuation – that the visit was canceled because of the press ban or the desire for gym time – is false. In fact, Obama visited wounded troops earlier – without cameras or press – both in the U.S. and Iraq. And his gym workouts are a daily routine.

Pickens is pushing for wind turbines. Wind power is irresponsible, you say – your Wikipedia link says nothing about Pickens’s plan being irresponsible. Incidentally, what Obama is promoting is an acceleration of what the Bush’s Energy department has belatedly proposed, 20% Wind Energy by 2030. Wind power is coming, but as usual it will take a while for you to pull your head out of your ass and acknowledge it.

Yeah, the NYT's article you quote continues in the very next paragraph after your quotation:

In referring to the sex-education bill, the McCain campaign is largely recycling old and discredited accusations made against Mr. Obama by Alan Keyes in their 2004 Senate race. At that time, Mr. Obama stated that he understood the main objective of the legislation, as it pertained to kindergarteners, to be to teach them how to defend themselves against sexual predators.

That is exactly what the ad said. Not that any of the bright people here would be fooled by this bullshit ploy, but your lies are beneath contempt. You charged the ad as being a lie and offer as evidence a piece from the NYT's that confirms the ad's claim, not your, despite your a blatant and willful distortion of it? (Unsurprisingly, you didn't offer a link for the Times piece either).

I love these deluded right wingers coming here and continuing their denial online.

Get your heads out of the sand.

(Btw - this is a common expression - I am in no way calling you an ostrich)

We wouldn't want to offend those hairy birds, now would we?

Ostrich is OK. Just don't call me a lipstick wearing pig, because that would imply that I package bullshit in fine gift wrap. But I'll just cry foul when I'm criticized for it, and the news media will spend an oh so productive week or two teasing out all the tantalizingly suggestive possible implications.

Calligraph had an interesting link. I also found Andrea Mitchell's counter statement of "it's false" to the troop visit cancellation a less than convincing counter-argument but, calligraph has kindly supplied a link that shows what a distortion this claim is, also, and how they continue to make it.

Other than that, Calligraph has made it obvious that most people have clearer critical thinking when analyzing a movie review than he (and how many other pitiful fools?) have when picking a president.

When did Americans become so stupid that a pathetic loser like Rove could persuade them to vote against their own interests and that of their country?

When did Americans become so stupid that a pathetic loser like Rove could persuade them to vote against their own interests and that of their country?

It's remarkable that a fat kid with a passion for lies and his ilk have convinced the republicans to abandon principle, personal interest, and personal judgment all in exchanged for loyalty. Their party was once an organization one could at least call reasonable and honest.

Calli is right that all the accusations have some vague relationship to the truth, but that relationship is stretched beyond reason to make what are clearly boldface lies. He can't fathom that because he is either dishonest with himself or us or is stupid. Stupid being the least likely option.

You don't think it's actual stupidity? I was thinking he might be an idiot savant - he can spell and type and can play any piano piece after just one listen but - he cannot understand ordinary facts.

I have been wrong before.

calligraph is genuinely pathetic. In surprisingly articulate rants, he makes such transparently stupid claims in such a patronizing fashion that you really have to wonder if there is something organically wrong with him. Does he really believe, for example, that our disappointment with Obama for his FISA vote will convince us that McCain will be better because he's a candidate we can trust to fuck the country over all the time? All the while, calligraph is telling us that we're whiners because we just don't understand the pressing need to construct a police state to keep us safe. The contradictions and fallacies are stacked one upon another, the (sometimes humorously) implausible views he holds - the guy has more than one screw loose.

Adam has posted a YouTube video of a bit of Charlie Gibson's interview with the lipstick. Check it out http://onegoodmove.org/forum/2008/09/palin-interview-with-gibson.html

Yeah, they are his exact words, pulled out of the context in which he spoke them

And that only matters when the context changes the meaning of the words extracted. For example, if Obama had said "My wife and I like to have sex, with my daughter out of the house" and McCain had quoted him as "Barack Obama says "I like to have sex, with my daughter!" ... then you'd have a point.

If you go to the doctor with two wounds, and both are severe but one more so than the other, you don't say "Hey doc, this wound is small and not a threat to my health. Fix the other!" You say, "Both wounds are serious, but we should focus on this one first."

You want to infer the second meaning from the first. Don't get huffy because your guy said the wrong thing.

factcheck.org offers its’ summary:

Which as you quote is that it is "literally true". Would this be the same type of misleading as saying "McCain voted against troop bills!", or "McCain voted against equal pay for women!" You better draw that line in the sand real firm, because I expect your guy is going to scuff it a few times.

Pickens is pushing for wind turbines. Wind power is irresponsible, you say

Read a book. It was a dismissive snipe at the Quixotic nature of the venture - tilting at windmills.

And I figured you to be smart enough to work the Google on the Internet machine, but there are many critiques of Pickens' Plan. You can find a pretty thorough criticism of it on AlterNet, which you cannot possibly accuse of being a 'right-wing propaganda forum'; for some reason the URL won't post here.

Incidentally, I started looking up Pickens after seeing his ads on TV and thinking "Hey, that sounds like a good idea". But researching it (which, by the way, I recommend) kind of soured me on the prospect.

In any case, turning to Pickens to discredit offshore drilling is specious - that billionaire oil main man just made some nice, folksy TV commercials.

And it's a ridiculous argument when your own candidate now supports the idea.

That is exactly what the ad said. Not that any of the bright people here would be fooled by this bullshit ploy, but your lies are beneath contempt.

I imagine you expect me to get all mad and outraged, but you'd have to be better at deception than that. Let's analyze the part of the quote you handily de-emphasized:

At that time, Mr. Obama stated that he understood the main objective of the legislation, as it pertained to kindergarteners

Gee, that sounds an awful lot like tacit assumption of the truthfulness of the Obama campaign's response to the claim:

Barack Obama supports sensible, community-driven education for children because, among other things, he believes it could help protect them from pedophiles. A child's knowledge of the difference between appropriate and inappropriate touching is crucial to keeping them safe from predators.

Funny, that doesn't sound like the original statement from Obama, quoted from ABC news:

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is 'age-appropriate,' is 'the right thing to do.' 'But it's the right thing to do,' Obama continued, 'to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools.'
You can even watch him say these exact words through the magic of the Internet: http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3386492

The response doesn't even make sense - "Science-based" education of "inappropriate touching"? Please. He even explicitly states that the content of such classes would be

determined on a case by case basis by local communities and local school boards

The backpedaling is almost as desperate as your fake-outrage flop sweat.

Does he really believe, for example, that our disappointment with Obama for his FISA vote will convince us that McCain will be better because he's a candidate we can trust to fuck the country over all the time

Actually, no. I don't expect to convince any of you to switch your vote - for that you would need to be rational, mature, and much more intelligent. For example, I don't really expect you to realize that your opposition to FISA is illogical. Not even when your candidate and entire party realize that.

I just can't believe how willing you are to be deluded. Obama followers aren't political, they're fanatical. You guys would be terrifying if you weren't so ineffective.

My advice to you, calligraph, is to do exactly what you are doing. Stay on the sinking ship, and exhort your ideological comrades to do the same. Stay the course. Be vocal, public, and relentless about it. Please. For the good of our country.

You guys would be terrifying if you weren't so ineffective.
You, on the other hand, are ineffective AND terrifying.

The response doesn't even make sense - "Science-based" education of "inappropriate touching"?

So, a teacher catches a kid doing what kids do, "exploring" themselves (or others), and the teacher is NOT allowed to say anything to the children without fear of reprocussion or getting fired. Wonderful. Let's let kids learn about sex from each other, instead of responsible adults. Do you not understand that the "science-based" term is used to explain the physiology of these kids bodies? Do you not realize that human bodies ARE studied by science, and we probably should know about our own physicality and the way it works? Naaa. This isn't abstinence only, you're talking "ignorance only"

but there are many critiques of Pickens' Plan.

Most are the fact that pickens wants to run the nation on Natural Gas, a clear conflict of interest since he owns natural gas companies. You hardly see criticism of the widmill side of the equasion.

And that only matters when the context changes the meaning of the words extracted.

Like, taking the fact that obama called the threat by Iran "small" compared to Russia, and continuously saying that Obama is saying that Iran is not a threat.

Yeah, that certainly kept the intent.

God you're getting lazy, this is too easy.

Which as you quote is that it is "literally true". Would this be the same type of misleading as saying "McCain voted against troop bills!", or "McCain voted against equal pay for women!"

Nobody here doesn't know that McCain voted against troop bills because it would "diminish troop levels and reduce reinlistment". We know that, and we know it's misguided. Soldiers in a time at war should not have to reinlist to get a full college education for serving their country. McCain does. This seems wrong to us. Soldiers deserve full, free education for their service. John McCain disagrees.

We know McCain thinks that the Lilly Ledbetter act would "increase lawsuits" because it gets rid of the statute of limitations. Well, duh, it's supposed to. What offends me is when McCain says this isn't the right way, but women just need "more education and training" to earn as much as men, when statistics show that women make less in the same exact jobs than their male counterparts.

Calligraph - Do you actually not get this? Really?

Obama says - let's talk to Iran. We talked to the Soviet Union which was a much larger country that was more dangerous to us at the time than Iran is to us now (how many nuclear weapons did the Soviet Union actually HAVE at the time? not trying to develop them but HAVE? How many countries has Iran taken over? How dominating as a world power? Have they ever tried to install missiles 90 miles away? )- so why can't we try talking to Iran?

Is that really not clear?

But - if you want to talk an analogy: You've got two doctors. One [Obama] says, your blood test shows you possibly have prostate [Iran] cancer [nuclear weapons, war, etc.]. I would like to perform a biopsy on it [talk]. It is tiny compared to the lung [Soviet Union] cancer we had results on before which posed a much more serious threat from the results we saw. We were lucky at that time, though, because the biopsy on the lungs showed all you needed was outpatient radiation for the cancer to go dormant. Please let me take a biopsy so we can see what's going on with your prostate.

You've got a second doctor who says - you know what - I know cancer and I don't even like the possibility of cancer so let's skip the biopsy. The only thing to do with cancer is cut it out. I am going to operate on your prostate immediately which might leave you incontinent and impotent and you might not have needed it anyway but I'm sure you don't mind going around in diapers and never having sex again.

Does that help, Calligraph? Which doctor do you go to?

Well, the bit about McCain fighting for campaign finance reform is at least a half-truth.

The McCain-Feingold act of 2002 was a step in the right direction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BipartisanCampaignReform_Act

...but being a Wisconsinite I'd like to give most of the credit to Feingold!

...the original statement from Obama, quoted from ABC news: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is 'age-appropriate,' is 'the right thing to do.' 'But it's the right thing to do" Obama continued 'to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools.' You can even watch him say these exact words through the magic of the Internet: http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3386492

Again - interesting link. Thank you. First - I'd like to clarify - the text was not ABC News - this was their blog called Political Radar. (Since it wasn't spellchecked, I was curious.) The title they gave to the piece I would consider misleading (the footage from ABC news seems to be labeled accurately). The way they pulled the quote I also find misleading. He digressed by making fun of Alan Keyes interpretation (you know, Calligraph - the same one you are pushing) and then he said (and what the actual part of the quote is on...)

But it's the right thing to do -- to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools.

In the discussion, it is obvious the emphasis is not on the small kids but on the teens.

I'm not sure I am in agreement with Magnolia on this. I believe they are talking science based because they aren't going to support the bullsh@t that the anti-sex education groups teach. They will use actual stats, explain you don't get AIDS from toilet seats, etc. I also think the inappropriate touching is more adults toward children. Since my best friend growing up was a girl who was being abused by her father from second grade until she had a breakdown when she was 12 and she never mentioned a word - even to me as a friend - I would say kindergarten isn't a bad time. Especially since it turned out her mother was aware her husband had a problem but never bothered to question her daughter saying later - she expected her daughter to come to her if there was a problem.

So Calligraph - again - do you actually think Obama wants to teach kindergartners something inappropriate? Do you think he wants to teach them to wear a condom? Or to practice safe sex? Is that what you believe?

So Calligraph - again - do you actually think ... Is that what you believe?

Calligraph doesn't believe most of the shit he says like this - any more than he really believes that dropping Obama's comparison of our security problems with Iran with those we faced with the Soviet Union doesn't distort Obama's meaning. He is, as perspicio keeps reminding him/us, an intellectually dishonest fraud.

I know you guys have said that but he seems to pride himself so much on his intellect - wouldn't a smart guy be embarrassed to even momentarily appear so dense and blindly supportive to McCain....

Well - look at his response to my pointing out that the McCain Iran claim was distorted. Do you find it to be convincing? His "refutation" of my calling him on the Factcheck link is weakest kind one can offer. It boils down to 'it could have been even more outrageous and your guy does it too.' Then we come to the question you posed regarding the claim that Obama wants to teach the use of condoms to kindergarten children is even more ludicrous.

I can think of only two interpretations of his posturing: he's a dishonest fraud (having nothing necessarily to do with his "intelligence") or he suffers from paranoid delusions. I think it is the former, but I can't rule the second out.

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives