niftydrifty

some opinions are just opinons, but some can be false statements. and inferences can be deliberately misleading.

you did read the whole article? how is anything Obama said more "obtuse" than anything anyone else can say about foreign policy during a timed answer in a debate?

here's Obama's quote: here's what one of his critics said in response: here's the rest of the quote, omitted by CNN: in response to this, CNN asks, "What does he mean?"

they're not saying that at all. don't lie. the media=plural. this one isolated incident=singular. MM is saying Dobbs/CNN labelled Obama in a biased, untruthful fashion. nowhere here did they say anything about what the media, all of the media should do.

furthermore, FluffyNinja, don't you think it would be possible to label nearly ANY 70-or-80-word snippet on a big topic and ask, "what does [s]he mean?" why did Dobbs ONLY do that to Obama?

__________________
"I admit it. The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures." - Bill Kristol

FluffyNinja

Well, I went right down to the very next "lie" in the list, #118 to be exact, and guess what????? That's right, I just couldn't, for the life of me, find an actual, blatant "lie" in the transcript of Tucker Carlson's exchange with his guests. What I saw was Tucker Carlson comparing Obama's philosophy on unilateral intervention to that of GWB (God forbid) based on the EXACT words from Obama's speech which I posted below. Carlson simply stated that bases on Obama's words he could not see any difference between his an Bush's approach. Please, show me the lie! Nifty, I really think that you.ve dug yourself a proverbial "hole" by posting the title of this thread "Lies."


OBAMA [video clip]: I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an Al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will.

The closer I look at all of these "lies" you've ripped from Media Matters, the more I see that most of these aren't lies at all; just negative opinions of Obama's platform or criticisms of answers he's given in debates or in speeches. What you seem to be saying is that anyone who publicly challenges Obama's views, opinions or answers is guilty of lying. Absurd!

Had you simply made the claim that Obama is receiving more negative publicity in the media than McCain, I would have wholeheartedly agreed and this thread probably wouldn't have gotten past 3 or 4 replies.

Also, you never answered my question from the previous post concerning "lie" #117 - The Obtuse Obama Issue. Do you honestly feel that Obama's reply on this issue was a quick-witted, well-thought-out, or particularly good answer in relation to meeting with leaders from enemy states? If not, then how would it be a "lie" to criticize his response as obtuse - since we're both intelligent people and obviously both know what obtuse means?

__________________
Ask not what you can do for your country, ask, "Where's my government handout?"

niftydrifty

this is getting very old...the article explains the differences. read it again.if Carlson had looked for differences, he would have found them. Carlson includes only facts which create a misleading impression. Carlson omits convenient facts which tell a very different story, that Obama is different than Bush. from the article, which you claim to have read:in actual fact, you haven't looked closely at them at all, as I'm pointing out what you clearly missed.

i'm not infallible. I make mistakes. but you have yet to show me one.

sure i did. i responded to your question with another question, which you neglected to answer.

if i'm going to just have to remind you about, or call attention to, things you've missed, over and over and over, then this isn't worth either of our time.

don't respond unless you've tried a little harder.

FluffyNinja

Nifty, I think I know where this is going. I think this will be my last post on this thread. You're one of those posters whose idea of a debate is "who can copy and paste the most links." your arguments are all about quantity, and like Obama's campaign, lack substance. Each time I point out that one of the media matters "Lies" you've posted is merely a criticism or opinion which reflects negatively on Obama, your response is always the same..... "Did you read the article?".....or........."Did you read the whole thing?"

Two more points and I will gracefully "bow out."

#1 - If YOU had actually read the transcript of the interview, then with your brilliant powers of observation, YOU would see that Carlson tries SEVERAL times to say that his point is not about the their overall policy in Pakistan but that based simply on Obama's OWN words he could not see a difference in Bush's approach and Obama's in the use of unilateral intervention. This is not a lie, it is not misleading, and it's not even unfair to Obama. If he can't even be held accountable for his own words, then this isn't America.

#2 - I will answer YOUR question, but I'll bet that you won't answer MINE. NO, Obama's answer wasn't any more obtuse than answers that any other candidate or even the President, himself have given. You think Bush hasn't been called way worse than "obtuse" by the media based on something he's said? So there, I've answered. Now, you won't answer, because, if you do, either you will be lying (by calling Obama's answer smart) or you'll be forced to admit that this Media Matters "lie" isn't a lie at all, but rather, just scrutiny or criticism of what Barack actually said.

Peace,
FluffyNinja

niftydrifty

really? yet another assumption not based upon evidence. search the board for my posts. i don't copy and paste a lot of links typically, or ever. why have I done it here? because the object was to illustrate which candidate had been lied about the most.

speak for yourself bro. i had to beg you to look at the content. you began critiquing my content by examining the character of a couple of people kinda sorta related to the source of my links.

now you're misleading (whether purposely or inadvertantly, i can't say). but you should also realize that you've ceased discussing substance, as well. how ironic.

LOL! did you even read my responses? I, in fact, said much more than that.


it's not only about Obama's words. it's about Obama and Bush's words. there are differences.

the world isn't either/or. if I say it wasn't "obtuse," i'm not automatically calling it "smart." and it wasn't just only about "obtuse." the headline said "what does he mean?" and a relevant part of the speech pretty much explaining as much was omitted by CNN? why? in order to make a purposely misleading inference. scrutiny of statements doesn't sound like this:

"OBTUSE: what does he mean?"

do I think that Obama's reply on this issue was a quick-witted, well-thought-out, or a particularly good answer in relation to meeting with leaders from enemy states? no. but I don't think it was obtuse, or all that vague, either. I don't think it makes sense to exercise a double standard, unless the goal is to lie about Obama. then, of course, it would make sense to exercise a double standard.


right back atchya. your pal,
Nifty

whom has been lied about most often in this race? Obama, by a mile. here's the latest:

Media Matters - Russert misquoted Clinton one day, falsely stated Clinton's and Obama's positions on NAFTA the next

Media Matters - On Fox News Sunday , Rove and Wallace failed to note Obama has answered questions about Farrakhan