DCdem vs jekbradbury
John McCain, through his intentionally incorrect campaign ads, has committed fraud.
DCdem said 09/22, 08:45 PM
The American Heritage Dictionary defines fraud as follows: "Noun 1. A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain. 2. A piece of trickery; a trick. 3a. One that defrauds; a cheat. b. One who assumes a false pose; an impostor."
John McCain's intentionally deceitful advertisements fall under this definition. The facts are these:
1. Sarah Palin supported the bridge to nowhere before she was against it. There are readily available videos and transcripts backing this point up. I point you to talkingpointsmemo.com.
2. In terms of numbers, Barack Obama's proposed tax cuts actually surpass McCains. Barack Obama also plans to direct his tax cuts at the middle class, which will be squeezed very hard by the wall street bailouts.
3. Neither campaign has license to attack the other on issues of experience, as both contain one "Washington insider" and a candidate with less-than-optimal experience.
4. Sarah Palin, claiming to be against earmarks, hired a lobbyist to secure 27 million dollars for a town that is small by anyone's standards.
5. John McCain votes with President Bush over 90 % of the time.
The ads use lies for unfair gain. See above.
jekbradbury said 09/22, 09:36 PM
1. True
2. False
3. False
4. True
5. False
1. Just because she supported it before she was against it doesn't mean she wasn't against it.
2. Newt Gingrich said it best: http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/533kqlep.asp
3. Sarah Palin has more executive experience than John McCain, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden put together.
4. She wasn't claiming to be against earmarks then.
5. President Bush doesn't vote in the Senate.
DCdem said 09/22, 10:12 PM
1. She still supported it, and claims she was always against it.
2. I got an error 404 on the article, and if I may point out, The Weekly Standard isn't exactly an objective source. However, I should have also clarified. I was talking specifically about tax cuts for the middle and lower classes, which McCain has claimed Obama wants to raise. If you look at this chart from the Washington Post at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html
you will see that the total dollar value of Obama's proposed cuts for people making under $170,000 a year (over 60% of taxpayers!!) are far higher than McCain's, while his proposed tax increases on corporate taxes will actually increase the government's total income far more than McCain.
3. Clarify?.
4. Again, you are missing the point. Palin actually said, "As governer, I stood up to politics as usual, to the lobbyists, special interests, and the "good ol' boy" network." Proof: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Multimedia/Player.aspx?guid=d84ee51e-b4b6-4aa1-b7ed-7b1f597f6b79 . That is only a half truth. Because fraud is defined as "trickery" here, half-truths count.
5. Out of space. I cede it
jekbradbury said 09/22, 10:56 PM
1. source please.
2. Read the article(add .asp or google what you have). Also, bragging about lower taxes in one sentence and higher taxes in the next is a very easy way to discredit yourself. A decrease in the business tax rate (ours is the second highest in the world) would most likely have such a positive impact on jobs that government revenues would increase.
3. Obama is the presidential candidate. Palin is not. There's a big difference.
4. Well, Palin *didn't* lobby for pork as governor, did she?
5. Why, thank you.
DCdem said 09/23, 08:11 AM
You have done an excellent job of MISSING THE POINT. Like it or not, John McCain's ads use untruths for gain, and therefore fall under the definition of fraud. That is what this debate is about. By the way, I would love to hear your viewpoint on how exactly Palin has more experience than Obama, Biden, and McCain put together. Even the fact that Barack Obama has, to a lesser degree, done the same is completely irrelevant to THIS DEBATE. Please stick to the issue at hand. The issue is that under the accepted definition of the word, John McCain has comitted fraud. By the way, there is myriad video footage of Palin publicly supporting the bridge to nowhere, as well as of her saying "I told congress, 'thanks but no thanks' for the bridge to nowhere.'". This is false. Palin took money from congress allotted to the bridge, and then kept it. The fact that McCain keeps spitting this constitutes fraud, while your staing away from the actual question constitutes politics as usual. So much for reform.
jekbradbury said 09/23, 05:46 PM
There is no fraud if there is no lie (legal definition, not dictionary definition). You have not given me a single instance of falsehood in a McCain campaign ad. On Point One (the only point with any substance anymore), you have your facts wrong. The bill that included the "bridge to nowhere" DID NOT PASS. THERE WAS NO MONEY TO "KEEP". I asked for your source, and you just kept saying the same thing. The facts are clear. Finally, if there was fraud (as it is legally defined) in a McCain campaign ad, you can be sure that Obama's lawyers would be on it in seconds. There is an institution for the rectification of fraudulent activity: the courts. The fact that the matter has not been brought to a court is evidence that THERE IS NO FRAUD. *ps continue by email if necessary*
Comments
Add Your Comment
If you actually look at the link, the first sentence is: "Bill Clinton said Monday the Democratic ticket should steer clear of launching personal attacks on Sarah Palin over her relatively thin resume, and instead acknowledge she was a "good choice" for the No. 2 spot on the GOP ticket." There are several things I find wrong with your Matt Drudge - like "reporting". It is a misleading headline. Obviously, the democrats shouldn't attack Palin on experience. Barack Obama has only slightly more in terms of years. Second, she is a good choice, if by that you mean a purely political one. Third, WHAT THE HECK DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH FRAUD?
DCdem | 09/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
This masterful dodging of the actual topic seems to be a recurring theme with you...
DCdem | 09/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
"Fraud" has a dictionary definition and a legal definition; the legal one depends on the specific laws that govern the context in which the alleged fraud occurs. Political campaigns have a set of rules, but a great deal of latitude has traditionally been allowed (as it should be) in order not to mire every election in legal battles. I wouldn't accuse John Kerry of fraud, despite his lies about his swift boat experiences. Sure, by your dictionary definition, it qualifies as "fraud," but I think that if every legal dispute could be resolved by reading the dictionary, well, then we wouldn't need legal scholars, would we? And if we are to compare all of the political ads from both camps, they have both made incorrect statements. Why do you not hold Obama as culpable as you do McCain? Could it possibly be that this is because of your own bias? That you are willing to overlook Obama's "fraud," but jump like a ferret on McCain's? Be consistent if you wish to have any credibility.
swdowning | 09/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
In response to SWDowning: 3 different legal dictionaries define fraud as: 1. A false representation of a matter of fact???whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed???that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury. 2.. Fraud is generally defined in the law as an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage. Fraud may also by made by an omission or purposeful failure to state material facts, which nondisclosure makes other statements misleading 3. the intentional use of deceit, a trick or some dishonest means to deprive another of his/her/its money, property or a legal right.
DCdem | 09/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
I forgive Obama for this because his untruths have been corrected.
DCdem | 09/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
Both sides need to stop whining about negative attacks. McCain has Bush campaign guys. What do you expect? They do know how to manipulate the sheepish masses. OBAMA 08!
ReVoluTionNow! | 09/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
Wow, revolutionnow, you apparently (looking at your avatar) supported Ron Paul, a small-government conservative if there ever was one, just months ago. And yet, you somehow now support a man who will greatly increase the size of government by, to list only one of many violations, instituting an expensive and inefficient universal healthcare program that will add several new agencies, if not new departments, to the Executive Branch and cost several hundred billion dollars.
jekbradbury | 09/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
Before you vote, I did give a source. Talkingpointsmemo.com is the only blog ever to win a pulitzer, and The Washington Post, Politico.com's Jonathan Martin (I know you trust that one), the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal all back me up on the bridge issue. Alaska was allowed to keep the federal money. This is fact staring you right in the face.
DCdem | 09/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
All I can say I'm so glad Obama picked Joe Biden for his VP because he confirmed today that their ad. showing McCain can't type is wrg. Also the short time Obama has been in the Senate he has asked for ear mark spending & the worst Senator for ear mark spending was you guess it Joe Biden. John McCain who has been there for how many yrs. had zero ear mark spending. As for Sarah Palin she has the best approval rate of any governor in the US. She also has given back more money to taxpayers in Ak. then any other state. I know this because because I know someone from Ak. & they love her. That is why the Dems are so afraid of her. So enough with the bridge the NY times are bias & we all know it.
lookouteb | 09/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
"1. Just because she supported it before she was against it doesn't mean she wasn't against it. "... Jek... your kidding right... thats so oxymoronic....
LostRealist | 09/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
Is there some part about WALL STREET JOURNAL or JONATHAN MARTIN, politico's CONSERVATIVE blogger, that you do not comprehend?
DCdem | 09/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
Conservatives and Liberals agree: McCain's ads contain blatant lies.
DCdem | 09/23/08
Report Offensive Comment
They both do. Check out factcheck.org. I think McCain does a little more, but what do you expect in a political caimpain?
College Mind | 09/24/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
Israeli Soldiers Sweep Into Gaza
IDF tanks and infantry launch a ground offensive in the Palestinian enclave
(Uriel Sinai / Getty)
The Science of Snowflakes
Caltech physics professor Kenneth G. Libbrecht has turned his passion for the study of ice crystals into an art form. In his books and website, Snowcrystals.com, he breaks down some of the basics behind these miniature miracles of nature
(Kenneth G. Libbrecht)
Boom: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/22/clinton-says-dems-shouldnt-attack-palin/
jekbradbury | 09/22/08
Report Offensive Comment