Posted on 09/15/2008 1:19:33 PM PDT by TommyJoe
A user of another forum that i battle with just sent me this!
Maybe you could briefly note what “this” is?
sorry I saw rachel maddow at msnbc and that was as far as i could get
What is it about?
EWWW. I had to click out and pass on when Rachel Maddow’s face and voice came on screen as a ‘truth authority’. LOL. She is as partisan as they come. This will only appeal to the liberal base that already likes and trusts an extreme lefty like Maddow.
Yep, after I pushed the post button i realized i didn’t go far enough with the description. This is a YouTube video of the new attacks at McCain record and statements.
obama did vote for sex ed for children
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j5lQ8Xt2nV-ZIMVgsE4TK63RSyCwD933JR5O0
As a state senator in Illinois, Obama voted for the sex education bill in committee in 2003, but he was not a sponsor.
The measure said schools offering sex education must include medically accurate information appropriate to the age of the students. The lessons were to cover the consequences of unprotected sex, the effects of various forms of contraception and the option of abstinence.
It also would have allowed parents to pull their children from sex education classes if they wished.
the title of the video is: “John McCain’s ads are LIES. Here’s the video proof”.
I saw that Rachel Maddow from MSNBC and turned it off.
Its about so-called distortions in McCain’s ads.
|
Does this mystery video involve Rick Astley?
Nope, but it can be blended. :)
“What’s wrong with you? The only purpose served posting this crap is to spread this crap. What? Do you get all turgid?”
NOPE, just posting what we are up against, so i guess my post sucked, happens i guess!
Ha ha ha! The only way they could “prove” McCain’s so-called distortions was to use statments by members of the liberal media? Pretty poor sources for the facts if you ask me. Guess they haven’t heard that the majority of Americans believe the press is biased.
tur·gid (tûrjd)
adj.
1. Excessively ornate or complex in style or language; grandiloquent: turgid prose.
2. Swollen or distended, as from a fluid; bloated: a turgid bladder; turgid veins.
[Latin turgidus, from turgre, to be swollen.]
Thanks.
|
http://www.atlah.org/broadcast/ndnr09-03-08.html
Is this the ‘trolling for a chicken little reaction’ posting we’ve been cautioned to watch for as the democrap party’s time grows short?
Have to disagree with you on this one....know the enemy. This shows you what their talking points are and what they are now trying to do. As of right now, they have abandoned their message of Change to try and set up McCain as a non-change agent and refocus the campaign on them as being the washington change agents... however, the one thing that the Obama camp is missing is that every (AND I MEAN every) ad that has been put out by the McCain camp is valid. The Obama camp is trying to reflect their own dirty tactics onto McCain... it is psychological operations 101. We must not sit idly by thinking that all the work is done b/c it is not ..... yes they are grasping at straws...but the important thing to note is that they are grasping.........
Jon Stewart as a rebuttal? Please.
Wow, video of CNN defending the “One”. What’s next newsreels from Goebels proving that Hitler was a great man?
It seems very close to that. The way to determine the 2008 Troll is his or her “concern” over something. When they say they are “troubled,” you KNOW you’ve got a live one.
I’d say the comments on Youtube pretty well reflect the mentality of many Obama supporters.
However, this campaign to smear John McCain as being dishonest and dishonorable may be effective, simply because the target audience is led to a (wrong) conclusion rather than being given the whole story. The last thing McCain should do is respond to this garbage and give it credibility.
The name of the video is:
John McCain’s ads are LIES. Here’s the video proof
C'mon people, use your brains instead of your mouths for once in your pathetic little lives. Those "refutations" of McCain's ads are nothing more than the biased OPINIONS of the left wing American media whores. None of their allegations are backed up by anything but their biased OPINION of what McCain's ads say. The most reprehensible liar in this campaign is not Obama or McCain, it's the liberal, biased American mainstream media, and many of you infantile morons are buying it lock, stock, and barrel.
OK, I admit that it's not a very good post. I was angry and in a hurry so it isn't anything to brag about, but it's the truth and I don't regret it.
The people who watch and post on Youtube must be the most vile excuses for human beings on the planet, that is if you don't count those who post on DemocratUnderground, KOS, or the Huffington site. I used to go to Youtube occasionally to download 1930s and '40s big band recordings, but I don't even go there to do that anymore because of the filth I have to wade through to get it.
Can’t watch any Maddow. She is doing a female Olberman impression with the extreme facial expressions and rants. I wonder how low her ratings will be?
|
What’s the deal with the box? Reminds me of people who type in all caps....
|
A relatively simple video to discredit and refute. This is the typical, general talking point the Obama campaign has decided to use in the past week or so (as Rush and Hannity talked about today): Discredit McCain simply by calling him dishonest. No real substance behind the claim, however, let’s go to the tape to prove that (you’re lucky I have some spare time now to do this, it’s kind of laborious and time consuming to refute a slickly produced video with type written words, and ultimately, in my experience, a fruitless excercise with anyone who would send such a video as ‘proof’ of McCain’s dishonesty; just watch how quickly your opponent brushes off this detailed response, despite all the work it took to make it) Let’s go to the video:
Time: ~0:20 “McCain’s charge that Obama’s one accomplishment in the Senate is to pass sex education for kindergardeners is labeled “distorted”:
This portion of the video is interesting in two respects: One, the video’s creator(s) never dispute the fact that Obama had very few, if any real accomplishments while in the Senate. The entire rest of the video never shows any proof of Obama accomplishing anything else there. So a reasonable viewer (not a leftist supporter already slanted towards him anyway) of the video will conclude that McCain did NOT “distort” this at all and in fact it’s true: Obama accomplished VERY LITTLE while in the Senate. Even this very video supports this claim.
Two, depending on how one defines “sex education”, the claim that “Obama supports sex education for kindergardeners” isn’t necessarily wrong. For example, if one defines “sex education” as ANYTHING having to do with sex, even warning kindergardeners against predatory behavior, then it’s not a “lie” at all to say what McCain said. Remind your opponent that there are still some families in this country that don’t want the public schools that THEY PAY FOR, to teach their children ANYTHING about sex. Some people believe that’s the role of parents ONLY. And there’s really nothing wrong with such a belief, that is, if one truly believes this is a country of individual liberty, and not forced socialism.
As an aside, Ms. Maddow is the one who described the ad as “nasty”; is she now the objective arbiter of what makes an ad “nasty”? Interesting. Also, the quote she provided that repeated the same idea as her editorial before was never sourced, so we have no idea who said, “It’s shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign ....” Probably another leftist editorial.
Time: ~0:40 “McCain’s claim that Obama described Iran as a ‘tiny’ country and ‘not a serious threat’ are ‘distortions’”
It is almost laughable that the producers of this video put this portion in their so called “truth” video. The very video they provide proves the assertion they claim is a distortion! Simply watch it and see for yourself.
I suppose the producers would have us believe that since Obama also said, “...like the Soviet Union was...” then that means he (Obama) was using the word “tiny” in context, meaning they aren’t as MUCH of a threat to us as the Soviet Union was. But this again shows his complete inexperience in foreign affairs, because there are no credible experts in foreign policy that would state Iran isn’t a significant threat to peace in the region, if not the world today.
Your opponent may counter, “But Obama ALSO said that we were willing to talk to the USSR, so why shouldn’t we talk to Iran?” (note this charge doesn’t prove at ALL that McCain “distorted” anything, but just an anticipated attempt at deflection I would be willing to bet will come up) Again, this shows a complete lack of understanding of the situation in Iran. Iran is a terrorist state; one simply can NOT negotiate with terrorists. The USSR, for all its faults (and trust me they had many) was not a terrorist state. So the two situations, diplomatically speaking, are not compatible.
Strike two for the video.
Time: ~1:00 “McCain’s camp saying that Obama didn’t want to visit the troops without cameras present is a ‘distortion’”
This is a good place to point out the fact that every time a claim is made by the McCain camp, SPECIFIC sources are cited. Here, one can clearly see the MSNBC website that quotes Pentagon sources saying “[Obama] was more than welcome”. So one can clearly see that he WAS welcome to come, so the question becomes, “Why didn’t he go?” Let’s go to the actual article shall we?
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/24/1220011.aspx
“*** UPDATE *** From NBC’s Jim Miklaszewski and Courtney Kube
A U.S. military official tells NBC News they were making preparations for Sen. Barack Obama to visit wounded troops at the Landstuhl Medical Center at Ramstein, Germany on Friday, but “for some reason the visit was called off.”
One military official who was working on the Obama visit said because political candidates are prohibited from using military installations as campaign backdrops, Obama’s representatives were told, “he could only bring two or three of his Senate staff member, no campaign officials or workers.” In addition, “Obama could not bring any media. Only military photographers would be permitted to record Obama’s visit.”
The official said “We didn’t know why” the request to visit the wounded troops was withdrawn. “He (Obama) was more than welcome. We were all ready for him.””
So from the very McCain ad that supports its claim with the MSNBC website, there is proof of the claim made by the McCain ad. It’s rather IRONIC, isn’t it, that Andrea Mitchell, ON MSNBC when she said it, has the audacity to claim, “...that [McCain’s claim about Obama not visiting the troops because cameras wouldn’t be allowed] LITERALLY is not true...” emphasis in Ms. Mitchell’s own words.
Astonishing.
Strike THREE for the video.
Time: ~1:22 “McCain’s claim that Obama voted against funding our troops is a ‘distortion’”.
Again, laughable (this is becoming a serious waste of my time, and I have a LOT of time to waste right now). The McCain ad clearly shows the record of Obama voting against the troops, the SPECIFIC record, but again, the claim of “distortion” is supported WEAKLY, by some paragraph taken out of no where (no source given except “US Senate voting records”.
You should, at this juncture, ask your opponent, “If John McCain voted TEN TIMES in ‘US Senate voting records’ to vote against body armor, etc, then show me ONE record, with a SPECIFIC citation, like the SPECIFIC citation given in MCCAIN’s ad to support HIS claim against Obama!
Laugable, and strke FOUR against the video. (How many strikes does it take before a leftist is convinced? )
Time: ~1:58 “McCain made a lot of people angry with CFR, including many lobbyists and special interest groups is a ‘distortion’”
Here’s where the video gets really slick. First of all, one must ask how many special interest groups are represented in Obama’s campaign? Is anyone going to tell me that there isn’t one “pro choice” representative there? Or how about someone representing the interests of the “gays”?
But even beyond that, the video offers as “proof” of McCain’s “distortion” that there are “159 lobbyists in the McCain campaign”. First of all, where’s the proof of that claim? There’s no citation or source for that claim, only Lou Dobbs repeating it. Again, Lou Dobbs is an arbiter of truth now? Why don’t the leftists accept Dobb’s word without proof when he questions THEIR side?
But let’s take as fact that there ARE “159 lobbyists in McCain’s campaign”. Are they possibly “ex lobbyists?” This is one reasonable question an objective person should ask. Another is, if they are active lobbyists, are they as successful as Hunter Biden? Or it’s only bad if McCain has lobbyists on his campaign; it’s ok to have lobbyists on Obama’s campaign? That’s something to remember: Obama fully supports the ‘Beltway insider’ ways of politics, DESPITE his promise of “change”.
Even beyond all this, you should remind your opponent that CFR is a sticking point with many conservatives as well, and we have no love loss for that bill either. You should also remind him/her that it was the conservatives ONLY who, back in 2003 when that was signed into law, were the ones complaining about it; they (the liberals) are a bit late to the party.
The bottom line is, that McCain is completely RIGHT when he said he angered a lot of lobbyists and special interest groups with CFR. He angered ME, and I’m neither of those. The video does nothing to disprove that; anyone with a memory can remember how much CFR angered all of us!
Side note, no source for the “$10 million given by lobbyists to McCain” either, again, TYPICAL of leftists (repeat a lie, or at least an unsubstantiated claim often enough, it becomes truth) and TYPICAL of this VIDEO in particular.
So strike five.
Time: ~2:20 “Who is the one standing in the way of lower gas prices? Obama is implied. This is a ‘distortion’”
The “truth” here is the same hemming and hawing double speak we’ve been hearing since Bush lifted the presidential moratorium on offshore drilling: That it won’t have an impact until 2030.
I’m not going to go into the specifics of debunking THAT claim (2030 claim) as it’s been done on FR or elsewhere I’m sure, and worthy of its own post, but let’s even take that at face value and say it’s true. So what? THIS is the reason we shouldn’t start drilling now?
Back in the early part of this century, when ANWR was still an issue, they told us it wouldn’t come online until 2010, and wouldn’t have an effect until ~2012. Well guess what? It’s almost that time NOW, and we STILL haven’t drilled! IOW, the basic message of this pro Obama video is, “Let’s not worry about 2030, that’s WAY in the future, who cares about THAT!?” (as an aside, this must be why they, the leftist’s, constantly refuse to address the problem of SS, since SS won’t go insolvent for many years, why care about it now? but I digress)
No, we’re told (by implication) in this video that McCain’s plan is a “distortion” simply because it would take more time than he could be president to have an impact on our economy. This makes absolutely no sense, and anyone with a brain should be able to see how it doesn’t. I simply won’t take the time to explain how that is completely ludicrous. (and again, the “2030” claim has been debunked anyway, I just don’t want to take THAT much time, as I’ve already taken too much time on this silly video, to debunk that thoroughly) Also remember, that when even the HINT of drilling was an issue, THAT’s when the price of gas went DOWN. It’s supply side economics 101: If the supply goes up, (or hints at going up), the SPECULATORS who are really the ones driving the prices now, will lower their speculations for crude, and thus lower the price of gas. So just THINK how much the price will lower because of speculative economics if we actually START drilling!
Even beyond all this, and as an aside, what’s the leftist’s proposal for energy solutions? “alternative fuels”? That sounds nice on paper, but, other than nuclear power (which is another no no for the environmental fringe) there exist NO viable alternatives to coal/oil to meet our energy needs, TODAY. This is a fact, and, if a leftist expects to be taken seriously, he must refute that or answer it, TODAY. It’s just that simple and...
...strike SIX for the video.
Time: ~the rest of the video. “Multiple leftist editorials are flashed up showing how, surprise surprise, the MSM agrees with the video’s claim!’
LOL Need I say more?
This video struck out TWICE. Batting record .000. Not even good enough for the BUSH league (hehe, get it, “BUSH” league? That little pun will drive em nuts ;) )
Watch how quickly your opponent completely ignores this detailed rebuttal though, and learn exactly how fruitless it is to try and reason with a die hard LIEberal.
Years ago when I first started homeschooling in NY State they had a law that we had to provide “age appropriate” Aids education.
I had a kindergartener. So I asked my homeschooling friend what she did for her kids. She said, well they said age appropriate. IMO what’s appropriate is keeping my child innocent and goodhearted. So what they got was bible stories” LOL.
I suggest you lose the box, I don’t know if you’re alone, but I see the box and I see a billboard and I skip it, you may be a genius for all I know, but I never read your posts.
|
Thanks to WWB...I read your post. I agree with you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.