Obama tries to catch up with McCain in deceptive ads

dmytryp · Sep 23, 2008

rugcat said:
If you make it voluntary, you'll have to deal with the fallout of eventually having millions of elderly with literally no money. You may feel that it's no one's fault but their own, but what are you going to do with them? Let them live on the street -- a whole new generation of homeless?

And a lot of people depend on ss to supplement their retirement programs, neither one being enough to individually to cover expenses. You might as well say to plan as if your company pension program (of which there aren't many, any more) will go belly up -- not an unreasonable fear, actually.

Several years ago, there was a big problem with retirement funds here. Centralazed Union (I don't think you have anything like that in US) managed them and they went broke (there were even suspicions of embezzlement. The government bailed them out, but closed them to new members. The new funds formed afterwards were with cut benefits compared to the old. If you want to change Social Security there won't be any other way. You close it to new members. Give the promised benefits to the old members and start new funds with sustainable benefits to the newcomers.

Williebee · Sep 23, 2008

The new funds formed afterwards were with cut benefits compared to the old. If you want to change Social Security there won't be any other way. You close it to new members. Give the promised benefits to the old members and start new funds with sustainable benefits to the newcomers.

That sounds almost logical. Thus, it will never work.

I would expect a slew of lawsuits of people saying.. "But THEY got..."

dmytryp · Sep 23, 2008

Williebee said:
That sounds almost logical. Thus, it will never work.

I would expect a slew of lawsuits of people saying.. "But THEY got..."

Don't worry, Netanyahu wa lambasted for this (he also raised retirement age). They could shout all they want, because if he didn't do it, there would be no money left to pay at all. This was a precondition to government bailout. The Union in any other cases would have fought this tooth and nail, but there were suspicions they themselves embezzled the money, so they shut up and let it slide.

InfinityGoddess · Sep 23, 2008

dmytryp said:
So, which part of the article and Factcheck, saying Obama stretched the truth (i.e. lied) do you disagree with?

I've already said. My main sticking point was Social Security. That, and comparing Obama's own truth-stretching to McCain's. McCain has done far worse, imo.

dmytryp · Sep 23, 2008

InfinityGoddess said:
I've already said. My main sticking point was Social Security. That, and comparing Obama's own truth-stretching to McCain's. McCain has done far worse, imo.

What exactly in the article was incorrect vis-a-vis Social Security?
As for the second part, I'd say this is a matter of pov, and I for one disagree.

InfinityGoddess · Sep 23, 2008

dmytryp said:
What exactly in the article was incorrect vis-a-vis Social Security?
As for the second part, I'd say this is a matter of pov, and I for one disagree.

How is suggesting that Obama is a pervert that wants to teach kindergarteners how to have sex not worse? I'd like to know.

And we can go around in circles about Social Security. It is not a lie to suggest that McCain wants to privatize it because he has shown support for it in the past.

dmytryp · Sep 23, 2008

InfinityGoddess said:
How is suggesting that Obama is a pervert that wants to teach kindergarteners how to have sex not worse? I'd like to know.

Because that's not what the ad said. The ad said that Obama voted for sex ed in kindergarden. And that's true. The explanations of what he meant after the fact are irrelevant.

InfinityGoddess said:
And we can go around in circles about Social Security. It is not a lie to suggest that McCain wants to privatize it because he has shown support for it in the past.

But that's not what the ad said and not what Obama said to the retirees.
And I refer you again to the quotes from factcheck.org

In Daytona Beach, Obama said that "if my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would've had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week." He referred to "elderly women" at risk of poverty, and said families would be scrambling to support "grandmothers and grandfathers."

That's not true. The plan proposed by President Bush and supported by McCain in 2005 would not have allowed anyone born before 1950 to invest any part of their Social Security taxes in private accounts. All current retirees would be covered by the same benefits they are now.

Obama didn't just say "McCain voted for privatizing Social Security" he went on to lie what that would have meant to people who were listening.
Now to the ad:

A new Obama ad characterizes the "Bush-McCain privatization plan" as "cutting Social Security Benefits in half." This is a falsehood sure to frighten seniors who rely on their Social Security checks. In truth, McCain does not propose to cut those checks at all.

The ad refers to a Bush proposal from 2005 to hold down the growth of benefits for future retirees. Compared to the buying power of benefits paid to today's retirees, that would not have been a "cut" for anybody. It would have been a "cut" of half only in relation to benefits now promised to retirees who have yet to be born. And for average workers, that "cut" in 2075 was projected by one of Obama's own economic advisers to be 28 percent, not "half."

The ad also says McCain voted "in favor of privatizing Social Security." The term "privatizing" could give the wrong impression. McCain does support creating government-managed accounts that would allow individuals to invest some portion of their Social Security payroll taxes in widely diversified stock or bond funds.

I really really don't understand why you persist. Why is it so hard for you to admit that Obama lied (or at least extremly stretched the truth much like McCain did with the kindergarden ad)?

InfinityGoddess · Sep 23, 2008

dmytryp said:
I really really don't understand why you persist. Why is it so hard for you to admit that Obama lied (or at least extremly stretched the truth much like McCain did with the kindergarden ad)?

Because he didn't. That's why. And I don't call McCain's conduct with the kindergarten sex ed ad to be "stretching the truth". That was out-and-out lying all around because a) Obama simply advocated teaching kids that young to protect themselves from predators, and b) the bill didn't pass ANYWAYS, and thus was a moot issue.

Jcomp · Sep 23, 2008

Pop quiz, when was the last time we saw a completely honest man elected president?

maestrowork · Sep 23, 2008

dmytryp said:
Because that's not what the ad said. The ad said that Obama voted for sex ed in kindergarden. And that's true. The explanations of what he meant after the fact are irrelevant.

No, the ad said it proposed "comprehensive sex ed" to kindergardeners, capped with: "learning about sex before learning to read?"

It's not completely untrue -- Obama did support the bill to teach K-12 age-appropriate sex ed. So the argument is by omitting the -12 and the "age-appropriate" part, did McCain's camp lie? Or just try to twist things to make it sound bad? Either way, it's NOT the truth. Or else your definition of "truth" is a bit crooked.

As writers, we all know what kind of effects a specific word, placed at specific places, out of context, really mean. It's meant to deceive. Plain and simple.

Come on, you wanted me to be fair, and I try to be. It's time that you try to be fair as well. McCain's ad is not just going for the extreme. He tries to deceive.

The thing is, one can choose to believe what he believes. If you think McCain is fair and telling the truth, then you can make yourself believe. If you believe Obama is a jerk, then anything he says is going to grate on you. And vice versa.

tiny · Sep 23, 2008

dmytryp said:
I really really don't understand why you persist. Why is it so hard for you to admit that Obama lied (or at least extremly stretched the truth much like McCain did with the kindergarden ad)?

Because people excuse their own candidate's actions yet crucify the other for similar actions. Excuses, they all stink. And both candidates are liars, I for one refuse to split hairs and say one lie is much better and more acceptable than the other.

"This lie is only a crowbar away from the truth while this one is a step off that." How stupid does that sound? Quite.

dmytryp · Sep 23, 2008

InfinityGoddess said:
Because he didn't. That's why. And I don't call McCain's conduct with the kindergarten sex ed ad to be "stretching the truth". That was out-and-out lying all around because a) Obama simply advocated teaching kids that young to protect themselves from predators, and b) the bill didn't pass ANYWAYS, and thus was a moot issue.

Did Obama vote for it? Did the bill state what sex ed for kindergarden would entail?

EDIT: I am really banging my head here. I provided you specifically with quotes of what Obama said and what McCain actually voted for and proposed. Please, guide me through it, how exactly Obama didn't lie?

Ken · Sep 23, 2008

Jcomp said:
Pop quiz, when was the last time we saw a completely honest man elected president?

Abe Lincoln, 1861-1865

dmytryp · Sep 23, 2008

maestrowork said:
No, the ad said it proposed "comprehensive sex ed" to kindergardeners, capped with: "learning about sex before learning to read?"

It's not completely untrue -- Obama did support the bill to teach K-12 age-appropriate sex ed. So the argument is by omitting the -12 and the "age-appropriate" part, did McCain's camp lie? Or just try to twist things to make it sound bad? Either way, it's NOT the truth. Or else your definition of "truth" is a bit crooked.

As writers, we all know what kind of effects a specific word, placed at specific places, out of context, really mean. It's meant to deceive. Plain and simple.

Come on, you wanted me to be fair, and I try to be. It's time that you try to be fair as well. McCain's ad is not just going for the extreme. He tries to deceive.

The thing is, one can choose to believe what he believes. If you think McCain is fair and telling the truth, then you can make yourself believe. If you believe Obama is a jerk, then anything he says is going to grate on you. And vice versa.

I am not clear what you want from me, Ray. One post ago I said McCain stretched the truth with his ad. I only responded to IG claiming that this ad is somehow much worse than what Obama did.

dmytryp · Sep 23, 2008

tiny terror said:
Because people excuse their own candidate's actions yet crucify the other for similar actions. Excuses, they all stink. And both candidates are liars, I for one refuse to split hairs and say one lie is much better and more acceptable than the other.

"This lie is only a crowbar away from the truth while this one is a step off that." How stupid does that sound? Quite.

I will never understand why people would negate facts. Not opinions, mind you, but facts. You can be however partisan, say your candidate lies less, find excuses for him, but faced with facts claim this is not true? *waves hands*

maestrowork · Sep 23, 2008

dmytryp said:
I am not clear what you want from me, Ray. One post ago I said McCain stretched the truth with his ad. I only responded to IG claiming that this ad is somehow much worse than what Obama did.

I guess I just wanted to hear they both stretched and bent the truth. Then we'll come to an agreement. The problem I had with that ad (and the thread discussing it) was how rob tried to somehow justify it (it's not really a lie...) and the other people are not condemning McCain for being deception either.

So, I just want a little more fair play here on P&CE.

So, back to the OP. Yeah, probably Obama's catching up with deceptive ads. No excuse for either of them.

Just politics as usual.

Agree?

rugcat · Sep 23, 2008

anis said:
Abe Lincoln, 1861-1865

Ever read up on what opposing politicians had to say about him?

dmytryp · Sep 23, 2008

maestrowork said:
I guess I just wanted to hear they both stretched and bent the truth. Then we'll come to an agreement. The problem I had with that ad (and the thread discussing it) was how rob tried to somehow justify it (it's not really a lie...) and the other people are not condemning McCain for being deception either.

So, I just want a little more fair play here on P&CE.

So, back to the OP. Yeah, probably Obama's catching up with deceptive ads. No excuse for either of them.

Just politics as usual.

Agree?

Yep. And I already said that. In all fairness, I think Rob mentioned several times that McCain turned that ad into extreme, though factually still remained within the realm of truth. Assigning intent is another matter altogether.

Ken · Sep 23, 2008

rugcat said:
Ever read up on what opposing politicians had to say about him?

I know they called Lincoln every name in the book.
Even one of his own generals questioned his intelligence.
But no one, I believe, ever questioned the Railsplitter's honesty,
who was a God among men, IMO

InfinityGoddess · Sep 23, 2008

dmytryp said:
Yep. And I already said that. In all fairness, I think Rob mentioned several times that McCain turned that ad into extreme, though factually still remained within the realm of truth. Assigning intent is another matter altogether.

No, McCain's ad was a gross distortion, therefore, it was a major lie. He was castigated severely for going into the gutter like that by the press.

And I do not think that there is an "equality" in the lies in this campaign. Obama, if he has lied at all, has not been nearly to the McCain level of lying. Not even close.

dmytryp · Sep 23, 2008

InfinityGoddess said:
No, McCain's ad was a gross distortion, therefore, it was a major lie. He was castigated severely for going into the gutter like that by the press.

And I do not think that there is an "equality" in the lies in this campaign. Obama, if he has lied at all, has not been nearly to the McCain level of lying. Not even close.

If at all?!!!!!
:Headbang:

tiny · Sep 23, 2008

Lie Levels. Now that's some kinda funny.

mscelina · Sep 23, 2008

Comparative morality is always a fun thing to watch isn't it?

Jcomp · Sep 23, 2008

In mild defense of comparative morality, the only real alternatives are "screw it, I'm not voting for anybody... possibly ever again," or "screw it, my guy's a schmuck, but I dig him anyway. He's got a swagger..."

shawkins · Sep 23, 2008

Jcomp said:
Pop quiz, when was the last time we saw a completely honest man elected president?

rugcat said:
Ever read up on what opposing politicians had to say about [Lincoln]?

I was going to go with John Adams.

Obama tries to catch up with McCain in deceptive ads

dmytryp

Williebee

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.

dmytryp

InfinityGoddess

Goddess of Infinity

dmytryp

InfinityGoddess

Goddess of Infinity

dmytryp

InfinityGoddess

Goddess of Infinity

Jcomp

maestrowork

Fear the Death Ray

tiny

riding the sun

dmytryp

Ken

dmytryp

dmytryp

maestrowork

Fear the Death Ray

rugcat

Lost in the Fog

dmytryp

Ken

InfinityGoddess

Goddess of Infinity

dmytryp

tiny

riding the sun

mscelina

Teh doommobile, drivin' rite by you

Jcomp

shawkins

Ahhh. Sweet.