Barack Obama released his first general election ad on Friday

[Decker]

Nah.  Just highlight what a complete distortion this is, which only highlights the man's inexperience. 

Did you feel the same about candidate Bush's outright lies about his championing a child insurance program which he vetoed?

Or his lies about the imminent failure of Social Security?

In 2000, did you vote for Bush after learning those nefarious claims?

[Dos Equis]

Did you feel the same about candidate Bush's outright lies about his championing a child insurance program which he vetoed?

Or his lies about the imminent failure of Social Security?

In 2000, did you vote for Bush after learning those nefarious claims?

Another diversion.  This thread is about Obama's distortion of his voting record.  I think it's really funny how people can't acknowledge what a blatant misrepresentation the ad is, and instead say "well what about Bush!" 

[Hugo Chavez]

Did you feel the same about candidate Bush's outright lies about his championing a child insurance program which he vetoed?

Or his lies about the imminent failure of Social Security?

In 2000, did you vote for Bush after learning those nefarious claims?

OH YEA, he actually told some woppers!!!!  In fact he didn't stop.  He just keeps going like the energiser bunny of liars.

[Hugo Chavez]

Another diversion.  This thread is about Obama's distortion of his voting record.  I think it's really funny how people can't acknowledge what a blatant misrepresentation the ad is, and instead say "well what about Bush!" 

That's not quite a red herring there BB.  It is relevant.  There's a precedent to this bitch.  If you're going to get steamed over this, it's fair to ask if you got steamed over W's lies.  You said it illustrates his inexperience.  Well...  It's fair to ask if you're applying fair judgement and what better way than to examine relative precedent. 

[Decker]

Another diversion.  This thread is about Obama's distortion of his voting record.  I think it's really funny how people can't acknowledge what a blatant misrepresentation the ad is, and instead say "well what about Bush!" 

All political campaigning is 'puffing'.

Truth is, Obama did support the bill and participated in its creation by offering up amendments.

Bush did not engage in 'puffing', he engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation like I pointed out.

[Dos Equis]

That's not quite a red herring there BB.  It is relevant.  There's a precedent to this bitch.  If you're going to get steamed over this, it's fair to ask if you got steamed over W's lies.  You said it illustrates his inexperience.  Well...  It's fair to ask if you're applying fair judgement and what better way than to examine relative precedent. 

I disagree.  There are a plethora of Bush bashing threads.  Bush isn't the issue (and neither am I).  I think what's fair is to test the guy who wants to be president and is running on some illusory "change" platform.  

In his first general election ad, Obama distorted his voting record.  Pretty bad.  

[Fury]

All political campaigning is 'puffing'.

Truth is, Obama did support the bill and participated in its creation by offering up amendments.

Bush did not engage in 'puffing', he engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation like I pointed out.

The bullshit runs knee deep with you. Anything to save face. The guy's a lying twat and not much better than Bush. So much for your champion. Perhaps you should pick another supposedly anti-War guy to support?

[Dos Equis]

All political campaigning is 'puffing'.

Truth is, Obama did support the bill and participated in its creation by offering up amendments.

Bush did not engage in 'puffing', he engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation like I pointed out.

So you're saying Obama was puffing? 

"The sometimes exaggerated buildup a salesperson or the seller may give to property. It is recognized in law as an opinion and not necessarily representing the facts"
www.all-foreclosure.com/define/define4.htm

[Hugo Chavez]

I disagree.  There are a plethora of Bush bashing threads.<==Red herring!  Bush isn't the issue (and neither am I).  I think what's fair is to test the guy who wants to be president and is running on some illusory "change" platform.  

In his first general election ad, Obama distorted his voting record.  Pretty bad.  

Now this is actually a red herring   BB, it's totally fair to examine for bias in your opinion and the reason I stated is totally legit.  If you were not bothered by the lies Bush told when he was running, you have no ground to say "pretty bad" here.  That's a pretty sound observation and I'll gladly be held to the same!

[Decker]

So you're saying Obama was puffing? 

"The sometimes exaggerated buildup a salesperson or the seller may give to property. It is recognized in law as an opinion and not necessarily representing the facts"
www.all-foreclosure.com/define/define4.htm

Sure. 

I posted this before:  No Senator passes laws by himself.  That's the fact jack.  Did he support that proposed legislation?  Yes.  He tried to add amendments for some changes but they were rejected.  Did he vote for it?  No.  He was absent.  Did he support it? Yes.

Text of Obama's ad: "That’s why I passed laws moving people from welfare to work, cut taxes for working families and extended health care for wounded troops who’d been neglected."

[Dos Equis]

Now this is actually a red herring   BB, it's totally fair to examine for bias in your opinion and the reason I stated is totally legit.  If you were not bothered by the lies Bush told when he was running, you have no ground to say "pretty bad" here.  That's a pretty sound observation and I'll gladly be held to the same!

Nope.  A common getbig tactic.  Discuss the person who posted the thread instead of the subject matter of the thread.  You don't lose your right to express an opinion if (for the sake of argument) you have given a prior inconsistent opinion. 

The issue isn't me or any other person posting on the board.  The issue is Obama and his ad. 

This is quite funny.  People running like scalded dogs from the subject of the thread.  lol . . .   

[Dos Equis]

Sure. 

I posted this before:  No Senator passes laws by himself.  That's the fact jack.  Did he support that proposed legislation?  Yes.  He tried to add amendments for some changes but they were rejected.  Did he vote for it?  No.  He was absent.  Did he support it? Yes.

Text of Obama's ad: "That’s why I passed laws moving people from welfare to work, cut taxes for working families and extended health care for wounded troops who’d been neglected."

Talk about rationalizing.  It was very misleading for him to not disclose that he didn't vote for a piece of legislation that he is taking credit for. 

You actually endorse Obama's attempt to pass off exaggerations (puffing) as fact? 

[Decker]

Talk about rationalizing.  It was very misleading for him to not disclose that he didn't vote for a piece of legislation that he is taking credit for. 

You actually endorse Obama's attempt to pass off exaggerations (puffing) as fact? 

It is a fact that advertisements are puffing and so is his ad.  It's also a fact that he literally cannot pass any law by himself but he says that. 

If we start to go after campaign ads to have the specificity, prolixity and exactness of a legal code, nothing would air.

[youandme]

If Bush sneezes during a speech it becomes an issue.


But if Obama blatantly distorts the truth, lies, conceals....."but Bush"

So Bush lied it's ok for Obama to lie?

Where is this change at?

[Hugo Chavez]

Nope.  A common getbig tactic.  Discuss the person who posted the thread instead of the subject matter of the thread.  You don't lose your right to express an opinion if (for the sake of argument) you have given a prior inconsistent opinion. 

The issue isn't me or any other person posting on the board.  The issue is Obama and his ad. 

This is quite funny.  People running like scalded dogs from the subject of the thread.  lol . . .   

We DIDN'T CHANGE THE TOPIC!!!!  Are you insane?  You don't lose any right, it puts your opinion in perspective and there is a credibility issue at stake.  Again, it's fair. And buddy, if we disagree with your opinion, you are not shielded from examination by magic default.  This is so simple, if you didn't have a problem when one your your guys did it, you have no credibility in finding fault here.  You're going to have to deal with a lot of this as we go and if you don't like it, maybe you all should have bitched before you let Bush set new standards everywhichway.  Sorry, you guys are not getting off the hook that easy.    You bought it, own it.

[Hugo Chavez]

If Bush sneezes during a speech it becomes an issue.


But if Obama blatantly distorts the truth, lies, conceals....."but Bush"

So Bush lied it's ok for Obama to lie?

Where is this change at?

oh brother, you're a gem   Who said it was ok for Obama to lie

[Decker]

If Bush sneezes during a speech it becomes an issue.


...

Only if he manufacturers evidence to take the US to war under false pretenses.  We'll leave soc. sec. and his tax lies alone. 

I think the war crime is enough to impugn his character.

[Hugo Chavez]

Only if he manufacturers evidence to take the US to war under false pretenses.  We'll leave soc. sec. and his tax lies alone. 

I think the war crime is enough to impugn his character.

that's just a sneeze   HaaaCHEW-WMDyellowcakeSaddamObliterate2countries... Bless you Mr. President.

[Dos Equis]

It is a fact that advertisements are puffing and so is his ad.  It's also a fact that he literally cannot pass any law by himself but he says that. 

If we start to go after campaign ads to have the specificity, prolixity and exactness of a legal code, nothing would air.

We have different viewpoints on campaign ads.  A candidate should not "puff," i.e., exaggerate his alleged accomplishments to fool people into voting for him.

If people are so concerned about the integrity of the White House, they should demand absolute honesty by the people trying to occupy the White House. 

[Decker]

We have different viewpoints on campaign ads.  A candidate should not "puff," i.e., exaggerate his alleged accomplishments to fool people into voting for him.

If people are so concerned about the integrity of the White House, they should demand absolute honesty by the people trying to occupy the White House. 

I agree with you somewhat.  But we are fighting an uphill battle of 200+ years of campaign practices.