• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is This Ad Dishonest or Does It Cross The Line.

Is this add accurate, dishonest, or does it cross the line?


  • Total voters
    42
I think it's dishonest, but it doesn't cross the line or go beyond what typical politicians say/do.
 
No, let's be honest what that ruling did. It gave corporations the right to do it. You and I always had the right to say whatever we wanted. McCain-Fiengold was a bad idea, but the ruling is worse.

False.

Corporations, along with any other non-human group, have always had free speech rights until McCain-Fiengold put a limit on some of those rights in 2003. CU simply overturned that law, restoring an existing right that corporations already had. And CU did not in any way declare that this right was based on corporations being "people" either. That issue was not a part of the decision.
 
The fact is that DP members with the proper knowledge can vote more than once in polls in this sub forum. That in a nutshell is the dishonesty. Had Redress put this poll in the 2012 US Presidential Election sub forum this could not have happened.

i've seen your hyperpartisan posts, honesty is not a high priority with you... it's not as high of a priority than your political agenda, anyways.
 
Aww, and we were doing so well.

Critical thinking and the kind of participation we see HERE is NOT the norm.

From what I've seen, appx 25% of the population LACKS real critical thinking skills. That's the percentage that shows up in polls and graphs concerning beliefs people hold that simply aren't based on objective reality.

There's a quote from one of the founders of the modern Public Relations industry that goes something like this:

"Give me an unlimited budget and 100% saturation and I could get a pig elected to the White House."

Simply put, what others know about how our minds/brains work, THAT WE DON'T, can be and is being used against us by those who DO.

$10 billion dollar a year industry (trade data), outside of those in the direct employ of businesses and political groups.

The same toolbox used to sell soap being used to sell ideas/beliefs.

Never forget that anorexia and bulimia are diseases born in body image beliefs resulting from marketing. Unintended consequences of people constantly being told they suck and no one will want/love them if they don't have/do "x".

Not all, or even most, PR/persuasion is "black". But the tools they use are much more potent than most believe.

So do you want to try to stop those 25% from having the right to vote somehow?

Or teach them how to think critically?

One thing you abosultely shouldn't and can't do - try to control what 100% of us see or hear because you declared that 25% of us are too dumb to.
 
So do you want to try to stop those 25% from having the right to vote somehow?

Or teach them how to think critically?

One thing you abosultely shouldn't and can't do - try to control what 100% of us see or hear because you declared that 25% of us are too dumb to.

Actually, I think the science of persuasion has reached a level of sophistication that demands greater scrutiny.

We should be educating our children about this, for their protection.

It is ABSOLUTELY at the heart of the divide in this country.

These tools are an "invisible hand".

They touch every single aspect of our lives.

Every single political campaign/message is crafted by professionals in this field.
 
he quoted someone who was not part of the McCain campaign, and attributed the quote to the McCain campaign...which is a bit dishonest

now Romney is attributing the quote to Obama.. which is also dishonest.

Obama used the comments from a paid consultant to the McCain campaign effort. That was already made clear here. That is not at all dishonest.

Romney took a quote which he knew was not attributed to Obama himself but was Obama quoting McCain. That is blatantly dishonest.

For anyone to pretend that they are on the same level is committing intellectual fraud of the worst sort.
 
Obama used the comments from a paid consultant to the McCain campaign effort. That was already made clear here. That is not at all dishonest.

Romney took a quote which he knew was not attributed to Obama himself but was Obama quoting McCain. That is blatantly dishonest.

For anyone to pretend that they are on the same level is committing intellectual fraud of the worst sort.

Mike Murphy was not a paid consultant to the McCain campaign... he was not a member of McCain's campaign... in fact, he was very critical of hte campaign after they brought Palin on board.

Obamas said ""Sen. McCain's campaign actually said, and I quote, ‘If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose.’".. which is not true.. McCains campaign said no such thing... Mike Murphy did.


if you are going to pretend to be concerned with honesty, at least apply your standards consistently.
 
Mike Murphy was not a paid consultant to the McCain campaign... he was not a member of McCain's campaign... in fact, he was very critical of hte campaign after they brought Palin on board.

Obamas said ""Sen. McCain's campaign actually said, and I quote, ‘If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose.’".. which is not true.. McCains campaign said no such thing... Mike Murphy did.


if you are going to pretend to be concerned with honesty, at least apply your standards consistently.



Wikipedia says he advised McCain.

Michael Ellis "Mike" Murphy (born 1962) is a Republican political consultant.[1] He has advised such nationally prominent Republicans as John McCain, Rick Lazio, Jeb Bush, John Engler, Tommy Thompson, Spencer Abraham, Christie Whitman, Lamar Alexander, and Arnold Schwarzenegger.[1][2] He was, until January 2006, an adviser to Mitt Romney, the Governor of Massachusetts and an about-to-become candidate for the Republican presidential nomination for the 2008 presidential election.[3] He stepped down as a result of his role as chief strategist to Governor Romney as well as Senator McCain, who were both widely expected to be Republican challengers in the primaries of the 2008 Presidential election. Murphy said he had decided to be neutral in a contest between two close clients, although he would advise each informally.

If he did this unpaid - I stand corrected on that one detail. But he still advised the campaign even if not officially attached.

In 2008, it was not exactly a secret that McCain wanted to stay away from the economy after gaffes like this

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2008/01/18/18960/mccain-economy/

“I don’t believe we’re headed into a recession,” he said, “I believe the fundamentals of this economy are strong and I believe they will remain strong.”

cannot blame a candidate for not wanting to talk about their weak areas

“The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should,” he said. But, “I’ve got Greenspan’s book,” he assured the audience.

Sorry but this cannot be pinned solely on if Mike Murphy got a paycheck or not.
 
Last edited:
Actually, I think the science of persuasion has reached a level of sophistication that demands greater scrutiny.

We should be educating our children about this, for their protection.

Agree 100%. Glad to hear you say this.
 
McCain team shapes up without Murphy - Mike Allen and Jonathan Martin - POLITICO.com

.. if he's not part of the campaign, he's not part of the campaign...it's really that simple.

that article was from early July with four months to go in the campaign. And why is this supposedly about one person - Mike Murphy - when the real issue is the reluctance of John McCain to talk about economics - a subject which he made major gaffes about, a subject which he admitted his lack of knowledge about , and a subject which worked against him in the campaign? Obama knew that, everybody knew that. That is the basis of the Obama comment - not necessarily what Murphy or anybody else said other than John McCain.

I think my comment about a paid consultant in my post #83 was not the total picture here and I was wrong to base it on that. I was basing that on a previous post in which another poster used the Murphy attribution. It goes beyond that and to McCain himself and the national perception that he was weak on the economy and did not want to discuss it after the previous listed gaffes on the topic.
 
Last edited:
that article was from early July with four months to go in the campaign. And why is this supposedly about one person - Mike Murphy - when the real issue is the reluctance of John McCain to talk about economics - a subject which he made major gaffes about, a subject which he admitted his lack of knowledge about , and a subject which worked against him in the campaign? Obama knew that, everybody knew that. That is the basis of the Obama comment - not necessarily what Murphy or anybody else said other than John McCain.

I think my comment about a paid consultant in my post #83 was not the total picture here and I was wrong to base it on that. I was basing that on a previous post in which another poster used the Murphy attribution. It goes beyond that and to McCain himself and the national perception that he was weak on the economy and did not want to discuss it after the previous listed gaffes on the topic.

well, we are basing the issue off of mike murphy's quote because that is the quote Obama specifially used.. and it's the quote the Romney campaign used... this entire thread is based upon that quote and that quote alone.
 
Mike Murphy was not a paid consultant to the McCain campaign... he was not a member of McCain's campaign... in fact, he was very critical of hte campaign after they brought Palin on board.

Obamas said ""Sen. McCain's campaign actually said, and I quote, ‘If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose.’".. which is not true.. McCains campaign said no such thing... Mike Murphy did.


if you are going to pretend to be concerned with honesty, at least apply your standards consistently.
In the following article by Thomas Defrank of the NY Daily News the quote was attributed to a top McCain strategist:

Insults fly as Barack Obama & John McCain prepare for second debate - NY Daily News

[h=4]RELATED: PALIN'S COFFEE CUP QUOTE IS MOCHA DO ABOUT NOTHING[/h]
McCain and his agents are "gambling that he can distract you with smears rather than talk to you about substance," Obama added. "They'd rather try to tear our campaign down than lift this country up. It's what you do when you're out of touch, out of ideas and running out of time."McCain's course correction reflects a growing case of nerves within his high command as the electoral map has shifted significantly in Obama's favor in the past two weeks."It's a dangerous road, but we have no choice," a top McCain strategist told the Daily News. "If we keep talking about the economic crisis, we're going to lose."

[h=4]RELATED: MAYOR'S GOT A SECRET - HIS PICK FOR PRESIDENT[/h]
One-time McCain adviser Mike Murphy told NBC's "Meet the Press" he's worried because "it's McCain's barn that is on fire. McCain is defending states like North Carolina, Virginia, Florida that he has to win.""I think McCain can win, but the fact is, if the election were held today, he'd lose, and I think he's on a losing path," Murphy added. "This trendline is very, very bad."

Read more: Insults fly as Barack Obama & John McCain prepare for second debate - NY Daily News
 
Re: Is This Add Dishonest or Does It Cross The Line.

I won't say "honest," but I will say shrewd. Let BO say it's untrue.

"But I was quoting McCain! HE said it! HE said it!" The quote still stands.

Even if BO was quoting McCain, the words still ring true.

Good ad. Looking forward to the rebuttal. (Of course, I speak as one who considers BO a lying sack of excrement.)

Where have you been?

From 2 days ago:

Obama campaign blasts Romney New Hampshire ad as 'deceitful, dishonest'

"President Obama’s campaign is blasting an ad Mitt Romney is running in New Hampshire as “a deceitful and dishonest attack.”

The Republican presidential candidate’s ad, timed for a visit by Obama to the state, uses a partial quote from Obama in 2008 that says “if we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.”

In the full quote from 2008, it is clear that Obama is actually referring to something said by an adviser to Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the GOP presidential candidate that year.

“His campaign actually said, and I quote, ‘If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose,’ ” Obama said at the time, according to a CNN report.

Democrats and Obama’s campaign said Romney’s new advertisement takes Obama’s quotation out of context and is dishonest.

“Just last week fact-checkers scolded Mitt Romney for distorting a comment the president made about creating American jobs, and now Romney launches a deceitful and dishonest attack rather than outline his own record or plans for the future,” Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said Monday night in a statement."

Obama campaign blasts Romney New Hampshire ad as 'deceitful, dishonest' - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
 
Re: Is This Add Dishonest or Does It Cross The Line.

Dishonest? I see truth, though :shrug:

Look: if Obama and all other candidates didn't dribble out a lot of bull**** faux empty campaign promises to win everyone's favor then those bull****, faux empty promises that weren't possible to achieve wouldn't be there to use against them when they don't make magic happen.

But you know: people want the lies.
 
The ad definitely crosses the line for deceit. It's interesting that Mitt is acting as though he's the nominee though with this ad.
 
Re: Is This Add Dishonest or Does It Cross The Line.

Dishonest? I see truth, though :shrug:

Look: if Obama and all other candidates didn't dribble out a lot of bull**** faux empty campaign promises to win everyone's favor then those bull****, faux empty promises that weren't possible to achieve wouldn't be there to use against them when they don't make magic happen.

But you know: people want the lies.

So it is as good as true because Obama said other unrelated things and is a politician, so other people want lies. Of course you just said you saw truth in the lie, so maybe you have what people want mixed up with what you want.

Basically, your post is one of the most messed up jumbles of complete nonsense I have ever read. Congratulations!
 
Re: Is This Add Dishonest or Does It Cross The Line.

So it is as good as true because Obama said other unrelated things and is a politician, so other people want lies. Of course you just said you saw truth in the lie, so maybe you have what people want mixed up with what you want.

Basically, your post is one of the most messed up jumbles of complete nonsense I have ever read. Congratulations!

No - actually . . . what happened is I thought I saw superman out the window.

no :) What really happened is that I misunderstood the issue raised about the add in the OP. . . after rereading (and re-watching) I see what the issue is, now, it just skipped over me before . . . and I agree that it was dishonest.
 
The add is accurate and does not distort Obama's words
1. Tucker Case
2. TurtleDude
The add is dishonest:
1. Catawba
2. Esther
3. Josie
4. lpast
5. LuckyDan
6. Manc Skipper
7. Mickey Shane
8. Phys251
9. rocket88
10. rosie1
11. Your Star
The add is dishonest and crosses a line: haymarket
1. Keridan
2. OhIsee.Then
3. Omgitsme
4. What if...?

Just thought I'd put up an accurate count.
I’m replying to my own post. I see that names are no longer listed in the votes. And now the count is even more suspect. (Also my previous post is not showing on my list of posts.) Is everybody happy with this?
 
It's dishonest, but what can anyone really do about it?

You would not accept lying from your children would you? If your answer is no how can you accept it from people you hold up to your children as role models and I do not care what party the person belongs to lying is not an exclusive behavior to any party.

What can you do? Write them a letter or send them an e-mail or when they come a knocking tell them why you will not vote for thier candidate
 
You would not accept lying from your children would you? If your answer is no how can you accept it from people you hold up to your children as role models and I do not care what party the person belongs to lying is not an exclusive behavior to any party.

What can you do? Write them a letter or send them an e-mail or when they come a knocking tell them why you will not vote for thier candidate
It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.

I think you can teach your kids a healthy distrust of every political figure and if you actually find an honest one...hold that one up as an example. The acceptance of stretching the truth and conveniently intentionally misinterpreting the facts is something voters accept all the time...when its their guy. When it is the other guy they insist on 'truthiness'. Kinda tough for party or the other (or their supporters) to claim moral high ground when their own foundation is so shaky.
 
I’m replying to my own post. I see that names are no longer listed in the votes. And now the count is even more suspect. (Also my previous post is not showing on my list of posts.) Is everybody happy with this?

Lolwut?

poll112511.png


ETA: Sorry, apparently attaching that shrunk it too small to read the names you thought were no longer listed.
 
Last edited:
Re: Is This Add Dishonest or Does It Cross The Line.

I won't say "honest," but I will say shrewd. Let BO say it's untrue.

"But I was quoting McCain! HE said it! HE said it!" The quote still stands.

Even if BO was quoting McCain, the words still ring true.

Good ad. Looking forward to the rebuttal. (Of course, I speak as one who considers BO a lying sack of excrement.)
The openness of your post explained you vote clearly. I bet if you were even more introspective you'd find a more basic or the root cause of your vote. Thanks.
 
Back
Top Bottom