Accurately describing what was said (Palin is lying about the Bridge to Nowhere or McCain doesn't know how many homes he owns) is not the same as lying about what was said (Obama made a sexist attack against Palin!).
Telling the truth is not the same as lying. I really don't know how to boil it down any simpler than that.
Sorry, Rsak. Let me simplify it some more so you don't get lost.
Rsak wrote:Do you disagree with anything so far?
Yes.
Accurately describing what was said (McCain doesn't know how many homes he owns) is not the same as lying about what was said (Obama made a sexist attack against Palin!).
Then you simply do not have the intellectual honesty to continue this discussion. I hope Harlowe does not take the same route, after she complained about clarity.
Points 1 and 2 are where losers wallowing in false equivalencies stop. I certainly wouldn't speak for Harlowe but I think she's knows the importance of points 3 and 4.
Harlowe wrote:I don't really care, but I'm curious why some people are in absolute denial over the actual politcal issues and stances. I just thought it was pointless to post anything because I'm certain you can't answer the question. If you could, you would have responded already.
I could answer it if I wanted to, I haven't because I got better things to do while I'm at work.
Harlowe wrote:I don't really care, but I'm curious why some people are in absolute denial over the actual politcal issues and stances. I just thought it was pointless to post anything because I'm certain you can't answer the question. If you could, you would have responded already.
I could answer it if I wanted to, I haven't because I got better things to do while I'm at work.
And each time Rsak and Lurker hit submit the overall IQ of the board seems to drop 10 points.
I could take a look and detail each difference between the two and why I support/don't support it for you monkeys, but why waste my time doing that when I'm getting paid to do my job?
I could take a look and detail each difference between the two and why I support/don't support it for you monkeys, but why waste my time doing that when I'm getting paid to do my job?
Because, instead, you can issue a denial while you should be working?
Give us all a fucking break.
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant
"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.
Select wrote:Well, the phrase is "couldn't care less" so maybe Rsak really does care and he's been consistent the entire time.
You fail at grammar. If you're poking fun, you fail at humor. Much the same as you fail at computer tech. But on the bright side, you excel at drama-whore, and being an overall cunt.
Grats to you on the achievement. You win.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
I could take a look and detail each difference between the two and why I support/don't support it for you monkeys, but why waste my time doing that when I'm getting paid to do my job?
Because, instead, you can issue a denial while you should be working?
Give us all a fucking break.
Actually I'm at home watching TV and trolling through the internet.
It's kind of embarrassing if youreally think people believe the "I'm just not responding because I have better things to do" or "it's not worth my time to explain" line.
I hate to state the obvious, but it's internet forum cliche and no one ever believes it.
Rsak wrote: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.
Well actually......none of what you said is the entire truth either.
1) The interview she gave was prior to her being elected.....and the question was whether or not she supported continued state funding for two different bridge projects and she said she did because their congressional delegation was in a position to assist.
2) Congress never killed the earmark. Originally AK was going to fund 40% of the project and the earmark was funding 60%. The change was that the earmark was reduced to funding about 20% of the project and AK would have had to come up with the other 80%.
So......yes she favored the bridge.......that's what governors do.......they seek federal matching funds for state infrastructure projects. And at the same time she cancelled the go ahead on the bridge because there were not sufficient state funds to complete it. So as always......the truth lies somewhere between the two partizan sides.