Obama has talent!

[Lurker]

The McCain campaign grabbed the issue and ran with it because Obama made the mistake of saying something that could be interpreted in more then one way. It is no different from the Obama campaign claiming Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere first and then against it later because both are non issues, only sound bites.

The two situations aren't the same at all other than that they highlight the moral bankruptcy of the McCain campaign.

In both instances the McCain campaign is lying.

They know full well Obama's statement wasn't a sexist attack on Palin, and they know full well that Palin didn't say "thanks but no thanks" to Congress regarding the Bridge to Nowhere. She ran in support of the project but Congress killed the earmark before she was elected.

The "Bridge to Nowhere" line isn't just a soundbite, they are using it as central proof of Palin's character. I tend to agree with them on that one.

[Rsak]

Lurker,

Wake the fuck up. Obama claiming she changed her mind is absolutely a sound bite and even if your closed little mind can't accept that there are countless other examples from both parties where this sound bite, jumping on misunderstandings or ambiguity occurs.

They know full well Obama's statement wasn't a sexist attack on Palin

NO, what they full well know is that some of the people they represent felt it was a sexist attack on Palin. In all honesty it is just a fair a claim as if Obama had secretly been referring to Palin. Both situations wouldn't bother me as beyond the pale because both are politics as usual.

[Harlowe]

I can't believe he's comparing Palin's outright lies to making assumptions about what Obama really meant.

No wait, I can believe it. It's Rsak.

So when she said that she told them "I said thanks, but no thanks". What was it that she REALLY meant, considering it's a fact that she originally supported it and it's a fact the state rec'd the money anyway. "Thanks, but no thanks...because you know it's not popular anymore, so even though I did support it, I'm not going to now, but we'll keep the money for something else. kthx".

How are her own words being used against her here?

[Lurker]

Obama claiming she changed her mind is absolutely a sound bite and even if your closed little mind can't accept that there are countless other examples from both parties where this sound bite, jumping on misunderstandings or ambiguity occurs.

This isn't about Obama claiming Palin changing her mind, it's about Palin lying about what she did.

I have no problem with views that evolve over time but don't lie to me about basic historical facts. Palin and McCain are trying to re-write history. She in no way said "thanks, but no thanks" to Congress since Congress had already killed the earmark before she even took office, while she was still supporting the Bridge project.

She's lying and both her and McCain know she's lying. That says all you need to know about their character.

[Lurker]

NO, what they full well know is that some of the people they represent felt it was a sexist attack on Palin.

Some people on these boards know you are a fecal eating chimp. Alert the media.

[Rsak]

Harlowe,

Does proving that Palin did not say No to the federal government really prove that she does not have a history of reform and vetoing earmarks?

All it does is win a sound bite award that you can turn into brownie poll points. It is one side seizing on a statement made by the opposition and using it against them. The practice is identical whether it is "People are offended over Obama's comment" or "Palin lied".

Lurker,

You really have taken leave of any intelligence this election year. You used to be just misguided, but now you are a joke.

[Harlowe]

I hear ya. The issue was never regarding Palin "changing her mind" it's her claim that she was never for it. That she turned the money down. That she continues to parrot these lines over and over, in hopes that her fellow Americans are absolute morons. She and her camp believe that if she says the same thing often enough, the myth will carry on regardless of the truth. Perception is reality and all that bs. It worked in 2004, why not more of the same for 2008.

The funny thing about changing ones mind and the 2004 election - that would have branded you a spineless flip-floppah then. Now with tables turned, it makes you a "maverick".

Rsak, it is one of many instances of her lying and about this saying no to earmarks thing, that is HILARIOUS. She hired a lobbyist to get her town MORE earmarks. $27million for a population of <9,000 worth of earmarks. You really don't bother to look into anything do you.

[Freecare Spiritwise]

Maybe it's a basic faith in humanity /shrug, but my guess is that most folks see right through this sad, sad ploy. With any luck this will backfire against McCain and galvanize undecided voters.

[Rsak]

Harlowe,

Rsak, it is one of many instances of her lying and about this saying no to earmarks thing, that is HILARIOUS. She hired a lobbyist to get her town MORE earmarks. $27million for a population of <9,000 worth of earmarks. You really don't bother to look into anything do you.

I see there being different roles when you are a mayor and when you are a governor. You know since you actually have the veto responsibility when you are a governor.

Does asking for earmarks when a mayor disprove the McCain campaign claim that she vetoed earmarks when a Governor?

And honestly no I haven't researched this, because I am not trying to defend the statements. I am not trying to prove them wrong either. I am only commenting on the political tactics being used. At this point I could care less whether she lied or Obama intended it to be sexist, because it has nothing to do with the tactics being used.

You are having problems separating the campaign and the issue that was being discussed.

[Lurker]

Does proving that Palin did not say No to the federal government really prove that she does not have a history of reform and vetoing earmarks?

Well, when their main example of reform is a lie it certainly doesn't help prove their case.

All it does is win a sound bite award that you can turn into brownie poll points. It is one side seizing on a statement made by the opposition and using it against them. The practice is identical whether it is "People are offended over Obama's comment" or "Palin lied".

Wrong. Taking a comment out of context is not the same as pointing out that part of Palins stump speech, part of her personal resume, is a complete lie.

At this point I could care less whether she lied

What an idiotic and dangerous attitude to have.

[Harlowe]

It boggles the mind. You could care less about her lies, even when it's her own example of what a great "reformer" she is? How about charging the state a per diem for 300+ days out of the year even when she is at home? What about this plane she sold on Ebay that actually was sold via a broker at a $600,000 loss, or this whole Troopergate thing? Hell in 2005 a judge ordered her to stop disparaging her sister's ex. She's an ambitious nutjob.

Just because she is less sleazy than the guy before her, doesn't make her "a reformer". Kept in context, it' just means a smaller shit sandwich.

[Rsak]

You two are just incapable of reading comprehension. I never said I didn't care whether she lied. I said it doesn't pertain to the thread and what was under discussion.

For your literal pea brains: In this thread I am only talking about political tactics and whether there is a difference between seizing on a comment directed at the opposition (Pig statement) and a statement characterizing themselves (Bridge statement). If you want to argue the validity of either statement do it elsewhere because it looks pretty clear that in this thread no one is saying Obama intentionally directed that comment at Palin.

If you want to actually respond to my remarks rather jumping to conclusions that they have any bearing on Palin or Obama and the validity of their claims please let me know, but until then go continue your mental masturbation obsession involving chimps.

[Lurker]

In this thread I am only talking about political tactics and whether there is a difference between seizing on a comment directed at the opposition (Pig statement) and a statement characterizing themselves (Bridge statement).

There's no difference. In both cases the political tactic chosen by McCain and Palin is to lie. Glad we got that cleared up.

[Harlowe]

You two are just incapable of reading comprehension. I never said I didn't care whether she lied. I said it doesn't pertain to the thread and what was under discussion.

You are incapable of expressing yourself in a clear way and/or you are dishonest.

At this point I could care less whether she lied

This is what you said.

If you want to actually respond to my remarks rather jumping to conclusions that they have any bearing on Palin or Obama and the validity of their claims please let me know

You are either delusional or so narcissistic you can't see your own words when they aren't serving you. We've been responding to your remarks this entire time.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Game, point, match.

[Rsak]

This is what you said.

And where did you find the comments? Oh wonders never cease it was in this thread where I have been consistent in what I was talking about. Just because you are incapable of seeking clarification if you are confused is the funny part. I accept that the issue is closed and no slight was intended when Obama clarifies his remarks, but you assume you know everything rather then using any reading comprehension.

We've been responding to your remarks this entire time.

No you have not.

Example A:

It boggles the mind. You could care less about her lies, even when it's her own example of what a great "reformer" she is? How about charging the state a per diem for 300+ days out of the year even when she is at home? What about this plane she sold on Ebay that actually was sold via a broker at a $600,000 loss, or this whole Troopergate thing? Hell in 2005 a judge ordered her to stop disparaging her sister's ex. She's an ambitious nutjob.

Just because she is less sleazy than the guy before her, doesn't make her "a reformer". Kept in context, it' just means a smaller shit sandwich.

Example B:

I hear ya. The issue was never regarding Palin "changing her mind" it's her claim that she was never for it. That she turned the money down. That she continues to parrot these lines over and over, in hopes that her fellow Americans are absolute morons. She and her camp believe that if she says the same thing often enough, the myth will carry on regardless of the truth. Perception is reality and all that bs. It worked in 2004, why not more of the same for 2008.

The funny thing about changing ones mind and the 2004 election - that would have branded you a spineless flip-floppah then. Now with tables turned, it makes you a "maverick".

Rsak, it is one of many instances of her lying and about this saying no to earmarks thing, that is HILARIOUS. She hired a lobbyist to get her town MORE earmarks. $27million for a population of <9,000 worth of earmarks. You really don't bother to look into anything do you.

Neither of those are dealing with the political tactics of use your opponents words against them and see if it has legs. You are focused so hard on she lied and Lurker is so focused on McCain fabricated this story it is absurd. I don't have a problem with using the words against the candidate, but don't put the other party on a moral pedestal and think it is only one party doing that kind of behavior.

Lurker,

Dear lord give up on the strawman arguments. You are so focused on McCain and Palin lied that you can't honestly debate the statements made by Obama and Palin and the reactions by the opposing parties.

[Lurker]

Shorter Rsak: Pointing out that your opponents words are lies is the same as your opponent lying about your words. They are both about words!

[Harlowe]

Rsak you couldn't stay on task if someone velcro'd your ass to it. You are always attempting to divert from your own words. No one buys it.

[Select]

Oh wonders never cease it was in this thread where I have been consistent in what I was talking about. Just because you are incapable of seeking clarification if you are confused is the funny part.

What kind of sentence structure is this and who taught it to you?

[Rsak]

Lets just boil this down to the material points:

1. We all agree that Obama's remarks were taken advantage of by the other campaign and that the story is about a non-issue.
2. Both parties do this:
----a. Republicans did it with the "lipstick on a pig" remark
----b. Democrats did it with "I will have to have someone look up how many houses I own" remark

Do you disagree with anything so far?