Ongoing McCain hypocrisy debate

[Terralthra]

aka Terr's getting tired of arguing with idiots, and could use some help.

My post that started this mess:

Given all the campaign and policy issues on which McCain has changed his opinion over the past 12 months, I don't really think anything in his record can be used to judge what he'd do as President. His 'record' indicates he'll do or say whatever it takes to get the Republican nomination for President.

And on how many issues has Obama changed his mind *during* the campaign? FFS he came out and admitted that he took a position against NAFTA for the sole purpose of defeating Senator Clinton, then a few months later said he was pro-free trade. When asked about it by a reported he said, "well you know, that is just politics" or some bull@#(!.

Frankly I'm going to trust the guy with a track record before I trust a guy with none, regardless of what they are saying today.

Also I tend to think that the comments about mccain changing his stance on issues are exaggerated. Take the immigration issue. He supported that big immigration bill and was criticized for it severely, so he basically said he would compromise and aquiesce to the will of the people and took a more moderate position on the issue. That's a pretty fair way to go about the process of changing ones mind.

What other issues has he supposedly changed his mind about?

@Terralthra: Are you serious? Obama, Mr. vote 'present', didn't even have an opinion on anything apparently... or he was hiding it so that it couldn't be used against him in his presidential campaign. I think that is a slimier move than changing your mind on issues because his job was to represent his constiutuents. Instead, he was worried about a run for the presidency the whole time he was a Senator... which wasn't even that long of a time anyway. So using your logic, what do you judge Obama on?

My rebuttal to the two of them

And on how many issues has Obama changed his mind *during* the campaign? FFS he came out and admitted that he took a position against NAFTA for the sole purpose of defeating Senator Clinton, then a few months later said he was pro-free trade. When asked about it by a reported he said, "well you know, that is just politics" or some bull@#(!.

1) Have a source?
2) You say "how many issues?" then name one, and extrapolate from that one that there must be many. Have you heard of a hasty generalization? You know it's a fallacy, right?

Frankly I'm going to trust the guy with a track record before I trust a guy with none, regardless of what they are saying today.

Are you serious? You'd trust a guy with a proven negative track record over someone without a track record at all?

Also I tend to think that the comments about mccain changing his stance on issues are exaggerated. Take the immigration issue. He supported that big immigration bill and was criticized for it severely, so he basically said he would compromise and aquiesce to the will of the people and took a more moderate position on the issue. That's a pretty fair way to go about the process of changing ones mind.

What other issues has he supposedly changed his mind about?

Off-shore drilling - opposed in May 2008, favors in August 2008.

Harsh interrogation techniques, a fundamental issue for most of his political life, he campaigned vigorously against torture, except for the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, which stripped the judiciary of its ability to review cases involving detainees and allowed the military tribunals to use evidence gathered through torture.

The 2001 Bush administration tax cuts, which he vehemently opposed when passed, saying they were bad for fiscal responsibility and unfairly distributed toward the richest Americans. Oops, fast forward to August 2007: "I would do everything I can to make the Bush tax cuts permanent."

McCain angrily condemned Barack Obama for giving speeches outside the United States:"“I would rather speak at a rally or a political gathering any place outside of the country after I am president of the United States. But that’s a judgment that Sen. Obama and the American people will make." Conveniently forgetting a fundraising speech he gave in Canada a month earlier.

Dirty campaign practices: When accused (falsely) of having an out-of-wedlock black child during the 2000 primaries by Bush's campaign team, he at one point said that "there is a special place in hell [for those responsible]." Apparently, hell is McCain's campaign, because he hired some of them. This goes with his pledge to not run a negative campaign, 3 months before his campaign began airing attack ads and smears.

Windfall profit taxes for oil companies, privatizing social security, estate taxes, illegal wiretapping...I could go on, if you'd like...?

edit - @Terralthra: Are you serious? Obama, Mr. vote 'present', didn't even have an opinion on anything apparently... or he was hiding it so that it couldn't be used against him in his presidential campaign. I think that is a slimier move than changing your mind on issues because his job was to represent his constiutuents. Instead, he was worried about a run for the presidency the whole time he was a Senator... which wasn't even that long of a time anyway. So using your logic, what do you judge Obama on?

mcwarren, are you familiar with the concept of a tu quoque fallacy? Or an ad hominem?

1) Have a source?

Yep.

2) You say "how many issues?" then name one, and extrapolate from that one that there must be many. Have you heard of a hasty generalization? You know it's a fallacy, right?

A bit pretentious of you, isn't it? Here's more examples.

edit: google yields more examples

Are you serious? You'd trust a guy with a proven negative track record over someone without a track record at all?

From where I sit the track record isn't negative. Did I somehow imply otherwise?

list of various examples with not a single citation

Amusing. You want a cite from me but cite nothing yourself.

Off-shore drilling - opposed in May 2008, favors in August 2008.

Another issue where McCain explained that times had changed and so had his position.

Harsh interrogation techniques

We've hashed this one out on these forums before, essentially he did not change his position on this issue in my opinion.

The 2001 Bush administration tax cuts, which he vehemently opposed when passed, saying they were bad for fiscal responsibility and unfairly distributed toward the richest Americans. Oops, fast forward to August 2007: "I would do everything I can to make the Bush tax cuts permanent."

That might be a good case, I haven't read much on that one, so you've got maybe one example. It's not one I mind frankly because I'm for tax cuts.

McCain angrily condemned Barack Obama for giving speeches outside the United States:"“I would rather speak at a rally or a political gathering any place outside of the country after I am president of the United States. But that’s a judgment that Sen. Obama and the American people will make." Conveniently forgetting a fundraising speech he gave in Canada a month earlier.

Non sequitir. What does this have to do with changing his stance on issues? McCain never made any whistle-stop tour of europe and was clearly making a joke here.

Dirty campaign practices: When accused (falsely) of having an out-of-wedlock black child during the 2000 primaries by Bush's campaign team, he at one point said that "there is a special place in hell [for those responsible]." Apparently, hell is McCain's campaign, because he hired some of them. This goes with his pledge to not run a negative campaign, 3 months before his campaign began airing attack ads and smears.

He hired the people who put together that commercial? But in any event, this is another non-sequitir since his hiring people doesn't involve a change of his stance on the issues. With respect to his no negative ads pledge, I frankly can't recall that he ever made any such pledge. I could be wrong though. Care to cite your source?

Windfall profit taxes for oil companies, privatizing social security, estate taxes, illegal wiretapping...I could go on, if you'd like...?

Why bother. My point is that both politicians are saying what they think will get votes. I think that much is clear. Only one of them has a record of actually doing anything, and I think that record is pretty positive. So yeah, I'll go with the guy who's got the positive record, over some unknown who frankly is far too inexperienced for the position anyway.

But of course, all of this is just a deflection from the issue discussed above. As I stated above, McCain has a track record of wanting to reform the banking industry before the crisis. Obama has no such record, though he was in the Senate at the time. You can respond to that by trying to attack McCain, but facts are stubborn things.

Yes, I'm quite familiar with the terms. My question to you is, why do you care? Rather than cry ad hominem, address what I said because even though I didn't address what you specifically wrote, I was addressing what your underlying meaning was. Given a political race where you have only two legitimate choices it is only natural to compare any point against both candidates. Either by your statement you were saying that you thought Obama is a better choice because McCain has changed his opinion at which time it makes you claim that it was ad hominem invalid... OR it shouldn't matter to you that I made that statement at all.

I'm coming to find that 'ad hominem' is a favorite defense by a handful of people on this forum. That way he who says the bad thing about one candidate first has given himself the opportunity that when a bad thing is said about their preferred candidate he can cry 'ad hominem! ad hominem!'. Its just so much easier that way than to actually respond to what was said. In a political race anything you say about one side will be cross-tested against the other side. Its the way people shop.

So Terralthra, I'll play ball. Let me rephrase my previous statement to a question. If you were someone who was considering voting for Obama how could you justify supporting him based on his record?

Yes, I would support someone with a supposed 'negative track record' (its all in the eye of the beholder anyway), than one with no track record if I thought the negative track record was one that I could live with. The unknown could be far worse. In Obama's case what I do know of him is unsettling, versus what I do know of McCain, while I don't agree with 100% of what he stands for, I can live with it.

Jesus christ, this forum software blows. I'll reply to both TakingArms and mcwarren later today or tomorrow, when I can figure out how to get the quote-reply to include my original statements.

For now: Taking, I find it interesting that you link to the washington post, which describes flip-flops, but doesn't actually reinforce them. None of the links in the article actually retrieve any quotes, for example.

On off-shore drilling, oil prices had gone DOWN over $30/barrel in the three months from when he opposed it to when he supported it. The only condition which had changed was that now he needed to support it to get Republican votes.

On harsh interrogation: well, if he didn't change his position, then his position has always been that people America torture should have no legal recourse, and the evidence garnered by torturing them is valid.

On foreign speeches: um, right. joke. haha. see us all laugh.

Hiring the campaign ad creator: source. The original "special place in hell" quote can be found here. Clean campaign promises can be found here and here, and the negative ad campaign was launched 3 months later.

As far as having a positive record, McCain voted YEA on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act, which repealed sections of the New Deal era Grass-Steagall act regulating bank holding companies and investment banks. Funny, for someone you think who wants oversight and regulation of the banking industry, his 'voting record' sure indicates he wanted to deregulate it and abolish oversight.

Hiring the campaign ad creator: source. The original "special place in hell" quote can be found here. Clean campaign promises can be found here and here, and the negative ad campaign was launched 3 months later.

Ok, what I see him saying is that he would run a "respectful campaign" No where that I can find did he say that meant no negative ads. Frankly I think his campaign has been pretty respectful, so long as you're willing to admit that a candidate can attack another on his stance on issues as well as the things he has said and still be respectful. Obama, on the other hand, has outright lied in some of his commercials, like the spanish commercial in which he pretty much lied and said McCain lies to get votes and said something along the lines of mexicans are stupid and essentially calls mccain a bigot.

As far as having a positive record, McCain voted YEA on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act, which repealed sections of the New Deal era Grass-Steagall act regulating bank holding companies and investment banks. Funny, for someone you think who wants oversight and regulation of the banking industry, his 'voting record' sure indicates he wanted to deregulate it and abolish oversight.

Ya, so that was what, 1999, 2000? (was Obama even in politics then?) There were no issues then. The issues began cropping up some years later, and it was then that he supported reform. Obama was in the senate, and he did nothing. Yeah, I'd go with McCain's record over Obama's.

You want to reach for some more straws in your next post?

Ok, what I see him saying is that he would run a "respectful campaign" No where that I can find did he say that meant no negative ads. Frankly I think his campaign has been pretty respectful, so long as you're willing to admit that a candidate can attack another on his stance on issues as well as the things he has said and still be respectful. Obama, on the other hand, has outright lied in some of his commercials, like the spanish commercial in which he pretty much lied and said McCain lies to get votes and said something along the lines of mexicans are stupid and essentially calls mccain a bigot.

Unlike the McCain sex education ad, the 'unconditional' meeting with foreign leaders ad (which Obama never said), etc.? Those aren't gross distortions of the truth?

Ya, so that was what, 1999, 2000? (was Obama even in politics then?) There were no issues then. The issues began cropping up some years later, and it was then that he supported reform. Obama was in the senate, and he did nothing. Yeah, I'd go with McCain's record over Obama's.

So, let me get this straight. McCain helped create the problem of deregulated investment banks, involving an actual piece of legislation that passed the Senate, and once the problem grew out of control, he proposed legislation (that has not passed) to try to fix his earlier mistake, and this is a positive record?

Yes, I'm quite familiar with the terms. My question to you is, why do you care? Rather than cry ad hominem, address what I said because even though I didn't address what you specifically wrote, I was addressing what your underlying meaning was. Given a political race where you have only two legitimate choices it is only natural to compare any point against both candidates. Either by your statement you were saying that you thought Obama is a better choice because McCain has changed his opinion at which time it makes you claim that it was ad hominem invalid... OR it shouldn't matter to you that I made that statement at all.

I'm coming to find that 'ad hominem' is a favorite defense by a handful of people on this forum. That way he who says the bad thing about one candidate first has given himself the opportunity that when a bad thing is said about their preferred candidate he can cry 'ad hominem! ad hominem!'. Its just so much easier that way than to actually respond to what was said. In a political race anything you say about one side will be cross-tested against the other side. Its the way people shop.

So Terralthra, I'll play ball. Let me rephrase my previous statement to a question. If you were someone who was considering voting for Obama how could you justify supporting him based on his record?

Yes, I would support someone with a supposed 'negative track record' (its all in the eye of the beholder anyway), than one with no track record if I thought the negative track record was one that I could live with. The unknown could be far worse. In Obama's case what I do know of him is unsettling, versus what I do know of McCain, while I don't agree with 100% of what he stands for, I can live with it.

Obama:
Not Vote (Absent, Present, Excused): 228 (40%)
Yea: 253 (45%)
Nay: 87 (15%)

McCain:
Not Voting: 300 (53%)
Yay: 136 (24%)
Nay: 132 (23%)

Care to rephrase your statement about Obama being the one who didn't vote on issues?

As for what McCain stands for? He stands for deregulating industry, privatizing the profits of exploitative business practices, until those exploits fail, at which point the businesses' failures are socialized, effectively a massive wealth transfer from the average taxpayer to corporate CEOs. He stands for women not getting equal pay for equal work. He stands for avoiding a health care system which provides fundamentally equal care to all citizens, regardless of their personal wealth. He stands for supporting a system of institutional and legislated hereditary oligarchy. He stands for a fetus the size of your thumb having greater governmental protection than the adult woman carrying it. He stands for depriving homosexuals of the same civil rights that heterosexuals take for granted. He stands for war without end, war against, and perpetuating, an ideology.

Even if Obama had no record, which is manifestly false partisan claptrap, I'd take him over someone with McCain's record.

Obama's legislative stances: increasing child tax and earned income credits, letting mostly low and middle class families which have children to support keep more of their pay. He's also been one of the Senate leaders on renewable energy, sponsoring at least 7 major bills aimed at reducing dependence on oil, increasing CAFE standards, etc. He's introduced several bills each on increasing access to affordable health care for all Americans, especially children, as well as being a leader on education reform and access. He also sponsored the Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act of 2006, ie took actual action against earmark spending, along with working against no-bid contracts and opposing raising the federal debt ceiling. He's also consistently voted pro-choice, pro-equity, and pro-civil rights.

I have no idea where you got those numbers from. I have no idea what time frame those numbers represent. They are suspect at best without any source.

L O L... I ask you how you can support Obama based on his record and your first response is a totally loaded view of McCain's record... right after you tell me I'm making ad hominem attacks? Supports institutional and legislated hereditary oligarchy? Wow... your views on the 'records' are so outlandish, unfactual, and brainwashed it doesn't even warrant a response.

I don't like arguing with Terra because he criticizes you for something and then proceeds to do the same thing - like taking one example and making a broad generalization, or not citing sources.

The other really annoying thing that Terra does is ignore the argument you make (e.g. Obama's dispicable ad and was it even respectful, or the fact that McCain didn't promise no negative ads as he claims) and instead responds with an tangential attack (e.g. another McCain ad he thinks was bad).

Re the sex-ed ad, check this link. Sounds to me like the sex ed ad was factually accurate, though it of course portrayed Obama in a bad light. That's sort of the point, to highlight the bad things you think the other guy was doing. It doesn't attack him personally or call him names. All it does is say, this is what obama did. Don't vote for him. That sounds pretty fair to me.

Re his unconditional meeting with foreign leaders, here's what obama actually said:

QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

Senator Obama?

OBAMA: I would.

Source.

Sounds to me like he said that he would meet without precondition with these leaders. Where's the problem with the mccain ad? Again, it's factually accurate.

You might not like what the ads say, but they don't say untrue things. If you have a problem, it should be with your candidate, who keeps doing and saying stupid things that open him up to attack.

I have no idea where you got those numbers from. I have no idea what time frame those numbers represent. They are suspect at best without any source.

Those numbers are compiled from each of their senate pages, and represent the period from 2005 through 2008. http://obama.senate.gov[url] and [url=http://mccain.senate.gov]http ... senate.gov

EDIT: This guy got the same results I did using this site. It might be faster than the senate.gov site.

You're welcome to do the tedious clicking and math yourself if you want to check my numbers.

L O L... I ask you how you can support Obama based on his record and your first response is a totally loaded view of McCain's record... right after you tell me I'm making ad hominem attacks? Supports institutional and legislated hereditary oligarchy?

A legislated hereditary oligarchy is the inevitable longterm result if one lowers the slope of progressive tax codes (as with the Bush tax cuts, which McCain wants to make permanent (voted YEA for extending them in 2006, wants to make them permanent, supports a flat tax), and a weak or nonexistent estate/inheritance tax (stands against estate taxes, votes YEA on eliminating taxes on estates up to FIVE MILLION, voted YEA to try to repeal the estate tax altogether).

Wow... your views on the 'records' are so outlandish, unfactual, and brainwashed it doesn't even warrant a response.

So, rather than actually find out if I have factual basis for my views, you just metaphorically stick your fingers in your ears. Seriously, which claim do you need me to source?

I don't like arguing with Terra because he criticizes you for something and then proceeds to do the same thing - like taking one example and making a broad generalization, or not citing sources.

Ask me for a source on anything you don't believe, but please refrain from this sort of well-poisoning ad hominem. If any of my arguments needs a source, or more sources, for you to believe it, simply ask.

[quote="idiot #1"
The other really annoying thing that Terra does is ignore the argument you make (e.g. Obama's dispicable ad and was it even respectful, or the fact that McCain didn't promise no negative ads as he claims) and instead responds with an tangential attack (e.g. another McCain ad he thinks was bad).

Funny, I don't recall you providing any Obama press reports or statements where he said he'd run a respectful campaign on the issues, nor any point at which he said the people who run negative ads would burn in hell. It's interesting the lengths you will go to to accuse me of being tangential, when the Obama ad is a red herring to begin with. I said that McCain said he would run a clean, respectful campaign, not long before launching a massive wave of concerted attack ads. You respond by saying that Obama ran a spanish-language ad that distorted the truth. That's both tangential and a tu quoque fallacy. I'm attempting to return the exchange to what it began on (McCain's opinion on truth-distorted attack ads, and whether he lives up to his own standard), and you accuse me of bringing up tangential things by attempting to ignore your red herrings. Hint: even if Obama is running negative ads, that doesn't eliminate McCain's hypocrisy.

Re the sex-ed ad, check this link. Sounds to me like the sex ed ad was factually accurate, though it of course portrayed Obama in a bad light. That's sort of the point, to highlight the bad things you think the other guy was doing. It doesn't attack him personally or call him names. All it does is say, this is what obama did. Don't vote for him. That sounds pretty fair to me.

If that's fair, then how is it unfair to link the Republican party's nominee for President with a well-known GOP-supporting right-wing commentator? The only way to say that making such a link is unfair would be to go by what McCain has said he thinks about Limbaugh personally, in which case you'd go by what Obama said about Illinois Senate S99, making it a distortion of the truth. Oh, wait, there goes your argument.

Re his unconditional meeting with foreign leaders, here's what obama actually said:
Source.

Sounds to me like he said that he would meet without precondition with these leaders. Where's the problem with the mccain ad? Again, it's factually accurate.

You might not like what the ads say, but they don't say untrue things. If you have a problem, it should be with your candidate, who keeps doing and saying stupid things that open him up to attack.

Firstly, the question lists Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea. The attack ad says unconditionally meet with any leader, which Obama by no means said he would do. Secondly, since when do we only negotiate with leaders that like us? Isn't that the point of diplomatic meetings and negotiation, to get our enemies to stop being our enemies? How is promising to do that stupid?
[/quote]

A legislated hereditary oligarchy is the inevitable longterm result if one lowers the slope of progressive tax codes (as with the Bush tax cuts, which McCain wants to make permanent (voted YEA for extending them in 2006, wants to make them permanent, supports a flat tax), and a weak or nonexistent estate/inheritance tax (stands against estate taxes, votes YEA on eliminating taxes on estates up to FIVE MILLION, voted YEA to try to repeal the estate tax altogether).
So, rather than actually find out if I have factual basis for my views, you just metaphorically stick your fingers in your ears. Seriously, which claim do you need me to source?

Ok, first of all, did you think I wouldn't check your sources??? I checked your sources. Either you don't know how to add or you were looking at a completely different set of numbers than what I was looking at. Obama had 279 "Not Voting" entries between today and August 7 of last year alone. I didn't even bother going any further because as I suspected your numbers are total crap. Funny thing too, because in the midst of some times he did vote there were some education reform votes that he didn't even participate in. And he cares about education soooo much.

Its just that what you call a legislated hereditary oligarchy, the people that actually worked for what they got might call it fair.

Use this example. A young couple start a farm by buying 40 acres of farm ground in Illinois. They live very modestly, eating what they grow and what cattle they raise. Over the next 10 years they are able to save up enough to buy the 100 acres next to them. They farm both plots for the next 5 years and buy another 100 acres. Then again in 3 years they buy another 100 acres. They continue working hard while raising a family. As their children grow up they take an interest in farming and help to grow the family farm. Fast forward another 10 years and they now have a 1500 acre farm that they built with their own sweat equity. They employ 10 people in the local community, donate a portion of their earnings to the poor and pay their income taxes on time. They don't have any nice things like big screen TV's, fancy cars, or nice clothes. They get up every single day at 5am and go out to work their farm. They finish working just after sundown every day. They paid off 100% of their debt so that they own the farm ground they've worked on all of these years. They would like for their children to be able to continue farming when they die. If the law stays unchanged and the estate tax that is scheduled to be in place in 2011 is in place when they die over 1/2 of their farm will be lost. The people they employ will be out of a job. So you have a significant portion of a small community out of work, and for what? The taxes paid on this will be redistributed to people who had no claim to that farm. How exactly is that fair? Do you think that you deserve a peice of that farm? What justification do you use?

You are mistaken. I am not sticking my fingers in my ears. I just refuse to play the game. I'll give you a taste and then I'll stop and I won't address this any further, but let's take your approach to describing each side's 'records' and apply it to Obama.

Obama supports taking money from people who have worked hard for what they have and giving it to people who have no claim to it. Obama supports playing god and deciding which human life is more valuable, a fetus or the mother. Obama supports letting our country come to a standstill as oil prices go higher and higher. Obama supports leaving the troops in Iraq until when he thinks he'll become president so that he can get the credit for pulling them out. See where this is going? Not very conducive to a discussion is it? That's why I said I'm not going to address it. Because we could sit here all day and twist truths into non-truths like you did in both your description of McCain and Obama. Its not worth my time.

It's interesting the lengths you will go to to accuse me of being tangential, when the Obama ad is a red herring to begin with. I said that McCain said he would run a clean, respectful campaign, not long before launching a massive wave of concerted attack ads. You respond by saying that Obama ran a spanish-language ad that distorted the truth.

Apparently you didn't actually read what I posted. What I said was:

Ok, what I see him saying is that he would run a "respectful campaign" No where that I can find did he say that meant no negative ads. Frankly I think his campaign has been pretty respectful, so long as you're willing to admit that a candidate can attack another on his stance on issues as well as the things he has said and still be respectful. Obama, on the other hand, has outright lied in some of his commercials, like the spanish commercial in which he pretty much lied and said McCain lies to get votes and said something along the lines of mexicans are stupid and essentially calls mccain a bigot.

If you take a look at the first two sentences, I clearly address your exact argument. You claimed McCain said he would run no negative ads. I pointed out that he did not say that, he said rather he would run a "respectful campaign" which is a very big difference. You can be respectful while criticizing the opponents views and acts. Only after I responded to your argument did I raise the Obama commercial, as a contrast to the kinds of commercials McCain had put out. I used Obama's commercial to illustrate what disrespectful looks like. None of McCain's ads are anywhere near as disrespectful as that spanish ad.

You respond by saying that Obama ran a spanish-language ad that distorted the truth. That's both tangential and a tu quoque fallacy.

It's not tangential if we're talking about the kinds of campaign ads being offered by both sides. I agree, I did not see any promise by obama to run a "respectful" campaign, and therefore it is not evidence of obama's hypocracy. But it is a telling difference between the candidates that one candidate constantly complains about being attacked, while at the same time offers some of the most vile propaganda in the campaign.

Furthermore, it's not a tu quoque fallacy since I addressed your main argument before I brought up the obama ad. I did not make the claim that McCain's ad is fine because Obama's ad is just as dirty - that would be a tu quoque fallacy. Rather, I said McCain's ad is factual on its face, and therefore not dirty. Only after I made that claim did I contrast McCain's ad with the Obama ad, which is very much a smear ad.

Hint: even if Obama is running negative ads, that doesn't eliminate McCain's hypocrisy.

Again, as I stated above, there is no hypocrisy on McCain's part.

If that's fair, then how is it unfair to link the Republican party's nominee for President with a well-known GOP-supporting right-wing commentator? The only way to say that making such a link is unfair would be to go by what McCain has said he thinks about Limbaugh personally, in which case you'd go by what Obama said about Illinois Senate S99, making it a distortion of the truth. Oh, wait, there goes your argument.

What about the sex-ed ad was unfair? What you've got is obama claiming he supported the bill so he could have age-appropriate instruction for kindergarteners in case of being inappropriately touched. But the text of the bill he actually voted for, which is quoted by my source, says nothing of the kind. It basically does not differentiate at all between the sex-ed offered in 6-12 or k-12. The bill itself says nothing age-appropriate instruction for kindergarteners in case of being inappropriately touched. Obama voted for the bill as the bill was written, not as what he might have wanted it to say. The McCain ad is truthful.

Re the spanish ad, did you read the source? First of all, the ad itself takes Limbough's comments way out of context. Essentially, it presents the comments as if they mean something completely different than what was intended. Second, it essentially says that McCain is a bigot, and it outright says, he lies to get your vote. It outright calls a McCain a liar! That's pretty damn disrespectful. Third, it links limbough, who has not only been hugely critical of McCain in the past, but has been hugely critical of McCain *in this campaign* It would be like putting Obama and some liberal left-wing blogger on the same commercial, and claiming that they stand for the same things.

Obama voted for the bill. The bill is available for all to see. The bill provides comprehensive sex-ed for k-12, making no distinctions about what is to be taught at K or 12 or anything in between. When did McCain vote for Limbough? When did he endorse anything he said? He never did. But Obama *voted* for the bill. He is stuck with the text of it, and can't just say "well I thought it meant something other than what it says." He endorsed it as itis written, and its perfectly fair for McCain to bring that to the attention of the voters. By contrast, it is patently unfair to link McCain to a conservative commentator he never endorsed, and who regularly criticizes him.

Firstly, the question lists Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea. The attack ad says unconditionally meet with any leader, which Obama by no means said he would do.

I don't even know how to respond to this argument, as it's almost nonsensical. Obama said he would meet with the leaders of these nations, which happen to be the worst of the US's enemies right now, without condition. McCain's ad says essentially the same thing, with the only difference being instead of those countries listed, it says any leader. That's a distinction without a difference. If Obama is willing to meet our enemies without condition, what difference does it make if he's willing to meet any other country without condition? I mean seriously??

Secondly, since when do we only negotiate with leaders that like us? Isn't that the point of diplomatic meetings and negotiation, to get our enemies to stop being our enemies? How is promising to do that stupid?

As senator clinton pointed out, the issue is not whether or not we would negotiate with these states. Clearly we do. But having a summit meeting, without precondition, is a ridiculous notion, and obama was roundly criticized for his answer to that question, and not by his opponents alone.

Again, the ad is factual, and you are grasping at straws.

I'm at my wits' end with these two. #1 refuses to stop bringing up red herrings, having dropped most substantive points (banking oversight, bush tax cuts, oil drilling, etc.), and idiot #2 is just straight making shit up, applying inheritance tax law wrongly, and acting as if that proves something.

Suggestions?