The Obama campaign uses the l-word, the word politicians in Washington are so afraid to use, even when the behavior is as plain as day to the rest of us. John McCain’s campaign lied, and Obama’s outside-Washington campaign called it out.
Good.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Will there be a press release from either Obama and/or the DNC that does NOT refer to McCain as “old”?
Doesn’t call McNovocain old.
Will there be a press release from either Obama and/or the DNC that does NOT refer to McCain as “old”?
Can’t think of a reason why there should be.
Unlike most of the McCain camp’s statements about Obama lately, the description of McCain as “old” has the advantage of being true.
Ageists!
If you don’t want to be labeled as old, don’t run a candidate 7 years past retirement age.
Oliver–did you getcher ticket?
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/08/tickets-for-obamas-convention-speech-sold-out/
Obama sells out the Stadium, but I’ll lay a wager McCain doesn’t sell out his Auditorium without his RepubliCon pals shipping in sime migrant workers to fill seats (and my apologies to any MW who ends up Shanghaied for this….)
next thing you know he will admit he isn’t flawless
Ageists!
Fuckin’ A right.
“Will there be a press release from either Obama and/or the DNC that does NOT refer to McCain as ‘old’?”
Two points…
1.) You realize McCain said he was too old to run as president, right?
2.) You realize Obama never called McCain old. He referred to his style of campaigning as part of the style of campaigning.
The attacks aren’t new, so I think old is the appropriate word. Maybe Farris’s tinfoil hat is sending him some hidden signal on this one. Kudos for Obama saying the word “lie” at least twice.
“Kudos for Obama saying the word “lie” at least twice.”
I know. There have been so many lies thrown around, but so few people are willing to call a lie a lie.
I don’t have that problem, as anyone here can tell.
>I don’t have that problem, as anyone here can tell.
The problem being, CS, is that use the word so often that it has ceased to have meaning when coming from you. I’ve lost count of the times you have substituted the word “lie” for “i disagree with that.”
John McTaint.
“The problem being, CS, is that use the word so often that it has ceased to have meaning when coming from you. I’ve lost count of the times you have substituted the word ‘lie’ for ‘i disagree with that.’”
I would love to see you back that up.
But you have no intent to back it up. You are making a statement that you don’t have the evidence to back up, but you are making it as if it was fact. In essence, you are lying about when I call someone a liar.
That’s the key here. Making a statement of fact when you don’t have the facts is a lie.
If I say a Porsche 911 from 1981 had better acceleration than a Lamborghini from the same year, I would be lying, even if I turned out to be correct. I would be lying about my expertise in the matter.
You have no idea how I use the term, ‘lie’ or ‘liar’ because you have done no research in the matter. Yet you are willing to make claims that imply you do. You are lying.
CSS: “If I say a Porsche 911 from 1981 had better acceleration than a Lamborghini from the same year, I would be lying, even if I turned out to be correct.”
OK, you’re going to have to clarify that a bit. Granted you used the word “better” which usually indicates an opinion is being stated rather than a testable fact (”My team is better than your team.” vs “My team has won more games than your team.”). But acceleration is a well defined, measurable quantity and, assuming by “better” you meant “greater” (as in “the 911 has greater acceleration and gets from 0 to 60 sooner than the Lamborghini”) what you’d be stating is a fact. So I don’t see how you could be lying if you, in fact, turn out to be correct.
And even if you DID mean it as an opinion, if your opinion is the 911 is “better” the most that could be shown is that your opinion isn’t based on facts. I.e., that you are mistaken, but not that you were lying about what your opinion was.
Just want to understand your definition of “lying”.
CSS: That’s the key here. Making a statement of fact when you don’t have the facts is a lie.
Re-reading I did see that. But it would seem to me that making a statement of fact when you don’t have the facts isn’t a lie. It’s an unsupported statement.
My dictionary defines “lie” as:
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
None of which describe a situation where a statement of fact is made without the support at hand.
CSS: You have no idea how I use the term[s], ‘lie’ or ‘liar’ because you have done no research in the matter.
Which is, again, something I, at least, would like to understand. Because it appears you aren’t using the terms with the meanings they are usually defined to have.
CSS: That’s the key here. Making a statement of fact when you don’t have the facts is a lie.
Re-reading I did see that. But it would seem to me that making a statement of fact when you don’t have the facts isn’t a lie. It’s an unsupported statement.
My dictionary defines “lie” as:
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
None of which describe a situation where a statement of fact is made without the support at hand.
CSS: You have no idea how I use the term[s], ‘lie’ or ‘liar’ because you have done no research in the matter.
Which is, again, something I, at least, would like to understand. Because it appears you aren’t using the terms with the meanings they are usually defined to have.
In essence, you are lying about when I call someone a liar.
Chuckle….
It never ends.
“It never ends.”
Not when your side keeps lying. Hell, you lied about what I said $61,000 thread at least three times.
Sean: “None of which describe a situation where a statement of fact is made without the support at hand.”
Really? Did you read the definition when you but and pasted it?
It’s number two.
In my example the lie is not the statement, the statement is being used to lie about my expertise.
Many, many, many times here people make claims they have no intent on backing up. They are merely stating them in hopes of being accepted as fact.
It is their intent to convey a false impression that they know what they are talking about.
CSS: Did you read the definition when you but and pasted it?
It’s number two.
That would be “something intended or serving to convey a false impression”.
That would require that the statement of fact someone makes is either intended to give a false impression (which, if the person believes what they are saying, would not be the case) or inadvertantly gives a false impression (which, if what they are saying does end up to be supportable, would not be the case (and wouldn’t square with your statement that “I would be lying, even if I turned out to be correct.”)
CSS: Many, many, many times here people make claims they have no intent on backing up. They are merely stating them in hopes of being accepted as fact.
It is their intent to convey a false impression that they know what they are talking about.
I would love to see you back that up.
Prove that it is their intent to convey a false impression or admit that you have just done what you are complaining about. Stating something with no intention of backing it up in hopes of it being accepted as fact.
“That would require that the statement…”
…okay. Let’s try that again since you obviously didn’t understand the first time around.
The nature of the statement doesn’t matter. The statement is used to convey a sense of expertise.
For instance…
1.) The following is a lie.
Mitt Romney’s drawing power among Mormons would be enough to swing both Nevada and Colorado to McCain, if he were to be chosen as McCain’s V.P. nominee. This would make it impossible for Obama to win the election..
2.) The following is not a lie.
Mitt Romney’s drawing power among Mormons could be enough to swing both Nevada and Colorado to McCain, if he were to be chosen as McCain’s V.P. nominee. This would make it nearly impossible for Obama to win the election..
See the difference? The first statement is practically impossible to back up because you would need a level of knowledge that is, well, inhuman.
One of our famous exchanges was started by Jay Tea (I think) who said ‘I don’t read Free Republic, but they are the same as Huffington post.’ How the hell would he know? He said, in essence, ‘I don’t know what I’m talking about. Here’s a statement of fact.’ That is a lie. The lie is not the statement, the lie is the implication that you have the necessary knowledge to make that statement with the level of convince you convey.
Got it?
“I would love to see you back that up.”
It’s called inductive reasoning. I.E. reasoning based on a pattern. I could go into more detail than that, but I don’t know your familiarity with the concept, so either I would go into too much detail, or go over your head.
Granted, you do have to start with a few assumptions, like “Cogito, ergo sum”, but that’s unavoidable. The main assumption here is, “These people are not fucking retards.” There actions are being directed by an intelligence and patterns that form are no accident. If they constantly make a mistake in one direction, it is evidence of bias, not merely a fluke.
CSS: 1.) The following is a lie.
… would be … impossible …
2.) The following is not a lie.
… could be … nearly impossible …
I see the difference, essentially the degree of certainty the speaker is expressing, but I don’t see either statement as a “lie” as they are expressions of opinion. Essentially an opinion as to whether Romney is a good enough team to swing things far enough to McCain’s side. And, as noted before, “good” is a subjective term.
At most, I’d agree the speaker is mistaken (and could probably prove that with facts), but not lying.
It seems, however, that you want to go beyond what is actually being said and talk about some unexpressed intent the speaker supposedly has so you can then call them a liar about that. I’ve not found you to be accurate when you’ve told me what I’m really thinking or intend so I don’t see that you have a lot of credibility when you do that.
Trying to be clear (and to keep this discussion in the reasonably good tone it’s had so far) I do get, I believe, what you are saying about someone misrepresenting (i.e., lying about) their level of expertise. But I don’t agree with you that that is what people are doing in some of their comments. To me, it’s clear that most of the things here are expressions of opinion (sometimes backed up, often not) and that absent the occasional “I’ve spent 20 years in the navy so I know about military affairs” comment aren’t really declarations of expertise.
“I see the difference, essentially the degree of certainty the speaker is expressing, but I don’t see either statement as a “lie” as they are expressions of opinion.”
They are not expressions of opinion. They are statements of fact. Expression of opinions would include, ‘In my opinion…’ or other such qualifiers.*
It is the intent to convey certainty where none exists, where none can exist.
* Lack of qualifiers is also another way to lie.
CSS: Expression of opinions would include, ‘In my opinion…’ or other such qualifiers.*
OK, you got me there. I don’t think it necessary for folks to include an “IMHO” with everything they say. I think that is one thing that is reasonably safely assumed for most of the posts that are made here. In my opinion.
Seems by that standard, every post made here would have to be start with an “In my opinion…” or set of references (to forestall the frequent “I-would-love-to-see-you-back-that-up” prove-its that come from some quarters). IMHO.
They are not expressions of opinion. They are statements of fact.
Oh please. You know, you’re the one that says you can derive what a person was “really” trying to say. For instance:
“Let me know when it is a violation”
Also means (according to you and only you), “I want to ignore it.” with regard to possible campaign violations.
Yet here you’re saying that unless specific qualifiers are used for certain statements, they’re lies? You’re telling me that you cannot distinguish between opinions or predictions without qualifiers? I call ASS COVERING on a major level.
By the way, the following is NOT a lie:
Mitt Romney’s drawing power among Mormons would be enough to swing both Nevada and Colorado to McCain, if he were to be chosen as McCain’s V.P. nominee. This would make it impossible for Obama to win the election..
This is a merely a conclusion based on a prediction. It’s one that could turn out to be right or one that could turn out to be wrong. But to call it a “lie” is just absurd. A lie is the form of an untruthful statement with the specific intent to deceive. There’s absolutely no deception in the above statement and you’d be hard pressed to say that there is intent to deceive. You’re taking the definition of lie to a whole new level.