NationStates Jolt Archive

i was just listening to ms palin giving a speech claiming that john mccain almost lost his bid for the nomination last summer because he supported the surge.

as if the surge wasnt popular with republicans.

john mccain's bid ran aground because of his support of immigration reform. he supported bush's plan that included limited "amnesty" for people already in the country illegally.

weren't we all alive last summer? dont we remember what happened then? should they really be telling this lie?

i was just listening to ms palin giving a speech claiming that john mccain almost lost his bid for the nomination last summer because he supported the surge.

as if the surge wasnt popular with republicans.

john mccain's bid ran aground because of his support of immigration reform. he supported bush's plan that included limited "amnesty" for people already in the country illegally.

weren't we all alive last summer? dont we remember what happened then? should they really be telling this lie?
Yeah. And so what? None of these guys are above a "misstatement" or two, if it helps their campaign.

The "surge" wasn't popular with anyone in the beginning. McCain exposed himself to heavy criticism over it - I remember CNN calling it the "McCain plan" in a derisive way. No nominee who walks into the media line of fire is going to be popular with their party's establishment in any case. It's almost never a wise thing to do. Immigration reform wasn't nearly as controversial.

The "surge" wasn't popular with anyone in the beginning. McCain exposed himself to heavy criticism over it - I remember CNN calling it the "McCain plan" in a derisive way. No nominee who walks into the media line of fire is going to be popular with their party's establishment in any case. It's almost never a wise thing to do. Immigration reform wasn't nearly as controversial.
oh so you werent paying attention last summer.

oh so you werent paying attention last summer.

I can just as eaily claim you were't. You think immigration reform was more controversial than the troop surge? Fine.

it certainly was with republicans.

I DO remember how many sets of generals they had to go through before they found ones that would recommend a troop surge.

it certainly was with republicans.

Your proof is irrefutable, surely. I guess you've exposed the great lie. :tongue:

Yeah. And so what? None of these guys are above a "misstatement" or two, if it helps their campaign.
^^This is why they can get away with such lies and revisions of history.

Ash, you're right. The big issue that had the Republicans shouting each other down was immigration reform. The surge was what the Dems were yelling about.

Your proof is irrefutable, surely. I guess you've exposed the great lie. :tongue:
so you are actually willing to believe that the republican base was against john mccain because of the surge?

wow, now i see why they tell the lie.

Welcome to the wonderful world of politrickery. Enjoy the ride!

so you are actually willing to believe that the republican base was against john mccain because of the surge?

wow, now i see why they tell the lie.

The Republican base isn't a monolithic group. And it isn't just the base who vote in the primaries. Some were hostile to McCain for his support of the surge and others didn't care, like anything else. Even if most of the heavy criticism came from the Left, McCain didn't benefit from bringing it on himself - that much is a fact.

The Republican base isn't a monolithic group. And it isn't just the base who vote in the primaries. Some were hostile to McCain for his support of the surge and others didn't care, like anything else. Even if most of the heavy criticism came from the Left, McCain didn't benefit from bringing it on himself - that much is a fact.
yeah. the left tanked mccain.

no republican candidate was not in support of the surge. it wasnt terribly popular in general but there was no reason to single out mccain when it was standard republican policy.

now i dont know how mccain won-- he was out of money and had to get a loan by promising to stay in the race long enough to get federal money to pay it back if he couldnt turn his campaign around. i guess it was because the other republican candidates sucked more than he did.

but mccain took a bruising for going against the republican base and the rest of the candidates by supporting bush's immigration plan. that was the one big thing that seperated him from the rest of the republican candidates. mccain was forced to change his mind and oppose the immigration bill that he had tried to get passed.

I DO remember how many sets of generals they had to go through before they found ones that would recommend a troop surge.

Yeah, me too. They had to get rid of the ones who kept saying that they needed two to four hundred-thousand troops to do an occupation effectively. Apparently Rumsfeld thought he had SkyNet cyborgs or something to accomplish the same task with thirty to fifty thousand.

yeah. the left tanked mccain.

no republican candidate was not in support of the surge. it wasnt terribly popular in general but there was no reason to single out mccain when it was standard republican policy.

The war wasn't any more popular this time last year than it is now. The left didn't "tank" McCain, but unless you're so far out on the fringe that you limit yourself to right-wing media sources, you heard the criticism. It was heavy, and McCain walked right into it. It was risky for him, and it should've sunk him. He got lucky. No other GOP candidate opposed McCain on the war vocally because McCain's military clout made it difficult to score points, but none wanted his name tied to the war, or even mentioned in the same sentence, either. Certainly not Giuliani or Romney. McCain took ownership of the war by trying to dictate its tactics. That carried a substantial risk.

now i dont know how mccain won-- he was out of money and had to get a loan by promising to stay in the race long enough to get federal money to pay it back if he couldnt turn his campaign around. i guess it was because the other republican candidates sucked more than he did.

but mccain took a bruising for going against the republican base and the rest of the candidates by supporting bush's immigration plan. that was the one big thing that seperated him from the rest of the republican candidates. mccain was forced to change his mind and oppose the immigration bill that he had tried to get passed.

They were both risky choices. Neither helped him in the primaries. The GOP field was stunningly bad, like you said. That's my best guess as to what tipped the balance in his favor as well.

am I the only one thinks this election is going to be more like McCain running as vice?

Yeah, me too. They had to get rid of the ones who kept saying that they needed two to four hundred-thousand troops to do an occupation effectively. Apparently Rumsfeld thought he had SkyNet cyborgs or something to accomplish the same task with thirty to fifty thousand.

has there ever been a case in recorded history in which a group has received the exact numbers they asked for? basic management that :tongue:

has there ever been a case in recorded history in which a group has received the exact numbers they asked for? basic management that :tongue:

Have the number needed and number received ever been so far apart -- especially given how many years it took the far-smaller number to even make a dent? Come on.

A-a-a-a-a politician? Careless with the truth??? In the McCain camp, no less? *faints*

McCain also claimed his wife was asked by Mother Theresa herself to adopt that baby girl. Even though cached versions of his website and his own wife's previous interviews directly contradict that story.

And that's just one of many lies. What's one more on the pile?

should they really be telling this lie?It really, REALLY taxes the conscious effort to support the 1st Amendment against all attempts to snuff it ... no matter how insipid, false, and counterproductive statements made under said protection may be.

no republican candidate was not in support of the surge.
You're forgetting Ron Paul.

Just like everyone else.

McCain also claimed his wife was asked by Mother Theresa herself to adopt that baby girl. Even though cached versions of his website and his own wife's previous interviews directly contradict that story.

And that's just one of many lies. What's one more on the pile?

Any proof of that it just sounds ridiculous

Almost as ridiculous as Hillary Clinton Bosnia lie. (That one is a historic bad)

And that's just one of many lies. What's one more on the pile?

It's important someone keeps track of them, if only for future generations to see and weep sadly at the gullibility of their ancestors.

You're forgetting Ron Paul.

Just like everyone else.

*Wipes away single tear*

You're forgetting Ron Paul.

Just like everyone else.
aye, i was.

and he did much better than most of the field too.

McCain also claimed his wife was asked by Mother Theresa herself to adopt that baby girl. Even though cached versions of his website and his own wife's previous interviews directly contradict that story.

And that's just one of many lies. What's one more on the pile?
but did she GET the baby at mother theresa's convent?

mrs mccain has her own problems that are out of bounds by obama rules.

It's important someone keeps track of them, if only for future generations to see and weep sadly at the gullibility of their ancestors.
Or it will be a cautionary tale about how the politician who lies least gets the most votes.

but did she GET the baby at mother theresa's convent?

mrs mccain has her own problems that are out of bounds by obama rules.

At Ma Theresa's orphanage, having Ma Theresa herself beg Mrs McCain to take the baby. Same difference.:P I applaud Obama for taking the high road, but I do think this litany of lies does need to be discussed.

It really, REALLY taxes the conscious effort to support the 1st Amendment against all attempts to snuff it ... no matter how insipid, false, and counterproductive statements made under said protection may be.
POINT THE FIRST: The 1st Amendment does not protect lies. I bolded that to make it ultra-clear because many people (including some Republicans out there) seem to think the 1st Amendment is carte blanche for them to run their mouths like there's no tomorrow. But it isn't. Lies are NOT protected speech. If the media were to just point-blank refuse to print/broadcast lies, that woud NOT be censorship. Attacking and exposing lies is most certainly NOT censorship. Just like it was not a infringement of anyone's free speech for the media and public to shoot holes through Hillary's Bosnia sniper bullshit, so it would not be an infringement of free speech to attack fairy tales about Mother Theresa begging the Saint McCains to take babies off her hands.

POINT THE SECOND: "Should they be telling this lie?" is NOT the same as "Should they be silenced?" Ashmoria is not wondering why they are not being legally stopped from telling their lies. She is wondering why they are telling such a stupid and obvious lie about something so relatively trivial in the election context. To me, it goes to show that the spin-doctors are out of control, that there is no detail too tiny for them to not make up a lie about. It's sad, really. And Ash is right, it's also a stupid move, strategically, because it just makes them look even more petty, dishonest, and lacking in judgment.

POINT THE FIRST: The 1st Amendment does not protect lies.
Lies are NOT protected speech.

The question is, who determines what is lie and what is not?

i was just listening to ms palin giving a speech claiming that john mccain almost lost his bid for the nomination last summer because he supported the surge.

as if the surge wasnt popular with republicans.

john mccain's bid ran aground because of his support of immigration reform. he supported bush's plan that included limited "amnesty" for people already in the country illegally.

weren't we all alive last summer? dont we remember what happened then? should they really be telling this lie?

*Waves his hand Jedi style* You remember nothing, vote for McCain!

The question is, who determines what is lie and what is not?

I do!

The question is, who determines what is lie and what is not?
sometimes its easy.

like "i sold the plane on ebay and made a profit"

no. she LISTED it on ebay but it didnt sell. she sold it through a plane broker and lost ....$600,000 or so.

or "i told them thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere"

no, she was all in favor of the bridge to the ketchican airport until the feds decided that they wouldnt pay for it. then she cancelled the project as too expensive for the state to pay for and kept the $225million to spend on other projects.

The question is, who determines what is lie and what is not?
Well, not you, that's for certain.

Hm...I think I'll pick....reality! Yeah, we'll let reality decide. Anytime anyone says anything about the past, we'll compare it to what really happened, and if it doesn't match up, then it's wrong. Then, after that is made clear, if they say the same wrong thing again, THEN it's a lie (as opposed to something they could plausibly claim was a mistake).

EDIT: For examples, see Ashmoria's post above.

Well, not you, that's for certain.

Hm...I think I'll pick....reality! Yeah, we'll let reality decide. Anytime anyone says anything about the past, we'll compare it to what really happened, and if it doesn't match up, then it's wrong. Then, after that is made clear, if they say the same wrong thing again, THEN it's a lie (as opposed to something they could plausibly claim was a mistake).

The problem is, the Republicans have turned facts into something that can be biased or subjective, as if they were opinions. In an almost Orwellian manner, they believe that if you repeat something enough for it to become accepted, it actually becomes true. The past is not fixed, but changes how they say it does.

See, for example, the "liberal media" that "is in love with Barack Obama." You can ignore that they reported non-stories like Reverend Wright or the "bitter" comments nonstop; you can ignore that John McCain himself has just about always been a media darling-- that in fact, he once called the media his "base," as some may recall.

All the Republicans need do is yell "evil liberal media" and complain about how unfair it is to them, such as when Campbell Brown asked a legitimate question about Sarah Palin's experience and refused to accept a spokesman's attempt to avoid answering.

And the sad thing is? It often works. Ignorance is Strength, my friends.

politics is all opinion. You could argue that every time obama compares mccain to bush he is telling a lie. Or you could put it the other way around when mccain denies it.

Whos telling the truth is a matter of opinion. There is no lie. There is just a disagreement.

politics is all opinion. You could argue that every time obama compares mccain to bush he is telling a lie. Or you could put it the other way around when mccain denies it.

Whos telling the truth is a matter of opinion. There is no lie. There is just a disagreement.
So, if someone says they did not do something, but they actually did, they are not lying? It's just a matter of opinion?

If someone says they had to run for cover to avoid Bosnian sniper fire, only that event never occurred, they are not lying? It's just a disagreement of opinions?

If someone says they made statements against the Iraq troop surge at a time and place when they actually made statements in favor of the surge -- and it's on tape -- they're not lying because there's no such thing as truth anyway?

Yeah, you know what? I don't think so.

The problem is, the Republicans have turned facts into something that can be biased or subjective, as if they were opinions. In an almost Orwellian manner, they believe that if you repeat something enough for it to become accepted, it actually becomes true. The past is not fixed, but changes how they say it does.

See, for example, the "liberal media" that "is in love with Barack Obama." You can ignore that they reported non-stories like Reverend Wright or the "bitter" comments nonstop; you can ignore that John McCain himself has just about always been a media darling-- that in fact, he once called the media his "base," as some may recall.

All the Republicans need do is yell "evil liberal media" and complain about how unfair it is to them, such as when Campbell Brown asked a legitimate question about Sarah Palin's experience and refused to accept a spokesman's attempt to avoid answering.

And the sad thing is? It often works. Ignorance is Strength, my friends.
This is true, but as far as I'm concerned that is the fault of my fellow liberals and progressives for letting the other side dominate the debate. As FDR said, repeating a lie doesn't make it true. But still, if no one will expose, counter and destroy the lie, then it doesn't matter that it's a lie.

This is true, but as far as I'm concerned that is the fault of my fellow liberals and progressives for letting the other side dominate the debate. As FDR said, repeating a lie doesn't make it true. But still, if no one will expose, counter and destroy the lie, then it doesn't matter that it's a lie.

Indeed. I try my hardest to fight obfuscation and lies, to do my part to not to be the passive progressive who allows conservatives to tell whatever lies they like.

politics is all opinion. You could argue that every time obama compares mccain to bush he is telling a lie. Or you could put it the other way around when mccain denies it.

Whos telling the truth is a matter of opinion. There is no lie. There is just a disagreement.
somethings are spin and some things are lies.

sarah palin is a reformer is spin.

sarah palin sold the state jet on ebay and made a profit is a lie.

So, if someone says they did not do something, but they actually did, they are not lying? It's just a matter of opinion?

If someone says they had to run for cover to avoid Bosnian sniper fire, only that event never occurred, they are not lying? It's just a disagreement of opinions?

If someone says they made statements against the Iraq troop surge at a time and place when they actually made statements in favor of the surge -- and it's on tape -- they're not lying because there's no such thing as truth anyway?

Yeah, you know what? I don't think so.

If they believe so they are not telling a lie. Altho i would never trust someone who cant remember what they did.

Sure politicians stretch the truth but they never admit to their mistakes. The media skews the truth for a story as facts arnt interesting to most people. And this gets topped off with the opinions of politics. Most of politics is not what needs to change but how it should change.

sarah palin sold the state jet on ebay and made a profit is a lie.

Depends what she meant by profit. if there was a new jet with a new life and the money is compared to a money/years ratio there may have been a profit. Of course such things cant be mentioned on the news because thats too much detail.

If they believe so they are not telling a lie. Altho i would never trust someone who cant remember what they did.

Sure politicians stretch the truth but they never admit to their mistakes. The media skews the truth for a story as facts arnt interesting to most people. And this gets topped off with the opinions of politics. Most of politics is not what needs to change but how it should change. You don't seriously believe that when "I don't recall" comes up at a congressional hearing, the individual actually doesn't recall, do you?
Depends what she meant by profit. if there was a new jet with a new life and the money is compared to a money/years ratio there may have been a profit. Of course such things cant be mentioned on the news because thats too much detail.When someone says they made a profit, people generally assume it means that revenue after deduction of costs was positive, seeing that that is the commonly accepted and dictionary definition of "profit" when used in conjunction with monetary transactions.

If they believe so they are not telling a lie. Altho i would never trust someone who cant remember what they did.

Sure politicians stretch the truth but they never admit to their mistakes. The media skews the truth for a story as facts arnt interesting to most people. And this gets topped off with the opinions of politics. Most of politics is not what needs to change but how it should change.



Depends what she meant by profit. if there was a new jet with a new life and the money is compared to a money/years ratio there may have been a profit. Of course such things cant be mentioned on the news because thats too much detail.
she didnt sell it on ebay. she sold it through a plane broker.

So is the State Jet like the State Flower or State Bird - the Arkansas State Jet is the Gloster Meteor?

If they believe so they are not telling a lie. Altho i would never trust someone who cant remember what they did.

Sure politicians stretch the truth but they never admit to their mistakes. The media skews the truth for a story as facts arnt interesting to most people. And this gets topped off with the opinions of politics. Most of politics is not what needs to change but how it should change.
Not admitting that you're lying is not the same as not knowing that you are making a mistake. Also, not admitting that you're lying is not the same as not lying.

Depends what she meant by profit. if there was a new jet with a new life and the money is compared to a money/years ratio there may have been a profit. Of course such things cant be mentioned on the news because thats too much detail.
What she meant by profit was extra money in the public coffer as a result of the sale. That never happened. They did not make extra money on the sale.

You don't seriously believe that when "I don't recall" comes up at a congressional hearing, the individual actually doesn't recall, do you?

Why wouldn't he? He doesn't believe there's any such thing as a lie or a fact, so why not unquestioningly believe any old thing that comes out of a politician's mouth?

Why wouldn't he? He doesn't believe there's any such thing as a lie or a fact, so why not unquestioningly believe any old thing that comes out of a politician's mouth?No he's arguing that a lie is a false statement of which the person stating it knows/believes that it is false. If the statement were true, but the person believed it weren't, they'd still be lying, and if the person believed it was true, even though it wasn't it wouldn't be a lie.

It's why courts have you "speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" as opposed to demanding that you not lie, since proving someone spoke a falsehood is easier to prove than that they did so intentionally. But it's not really relevant, since the more obvious assumption is that someone smart enough to be elected governor and mayor and then get picked as VP candidate is probably not too stupid to realise what they said was factually incorrect.

No he's arguing that a lie is a false statement of which the person stating it knows/believes that it is false. If the statement were true, but the person believed it weren't, they'd still be lying, and if the person believed it was true, even though it wasn't it wouldn't be a lie.

It's why courts have you "speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" as opposed to demanding that you not lie, since proving someone spoke a falsehood is easier to prove than that they did so intentionally. But it's not really relevant, since the more obvious assumption is that someone smart enough to be elected governor and mayor and then get picked as VP candidate is probably not too stupid to realise what they said was factually incorrect.
Particularly when the event they are talking about is fully documented. If someone says they sold a plane for $600,000, and it later turns out it only sold for $587,000, and they say, "Oh, did it? I thought it was more. Guess I did not recall the event correctly," it would be reasonable to let that slide.

If a person says they sold a plane on ebay for $600,000 (you know, or whatever amount), and in fact, the ebay sale failed and it had to be taken off ebay, and a broker had to be contracted to sell it for them at a greater cost, and there's all the documents and receipts to prove it, THAT is too great a discrepancy to shrug off. It's the sale of a plane, for crying out loud. Who "misremembers" that kind of a thing? What is she -- an airline executive who can't keep track of all the planes she buys and sells in a year?

EDIT: In my opinion, it is absolutely ridiculous for someone to try to shrug that off by saying, "Oh, well, lies are just differences of opinion about how things should be in politics, and anyway, she could have just forgotten what really happened," which is what the poster I was responding to did. To me, that is just an attempt to excuse the lie.

Particularly when the event they are talking about is fully documented. If someone says they sold a plane for $600,000, and it later turns out it only sold for $587,000, and they say, "Oh, did it? I thought it was more. Guess I did not recall the event correctly," it would be reasonable to let that slide.

If a person says they sold a plane on ebay for $600,000 (you know, or whatever amount), and in fact, the ebay sale failed and it had to be taken off ebay, and a broker had to be contracted to sell it for them at a greater cost, and there's all the documents and receipts to prove it, THAT is too great a discrepancy to shrug off. It's the sale of a plane, for crying out loud. Who "misremembers" that kind of a thing? What is she -- an airline executive who can't keep track of all the planes she buys and sells in a year?

EDIT: In my opinion, it is absolutely ridiculous for someone to try to shrug that off by saying, "Oh, well, lies are just differences of opinion about how things should be in politics, and anyway, she could have just forgotten what really happened," which is what the poster I was responding to did. To me, that is just an attempt to excuse the lie.

Wait a minute... how many houses do I own?

You are talking about a party that can forget anything they please.

i was just listening to ms palin giving a speech claiming that john mccain almost lost his bid for the nomination last summer because he supported the surge.

as if the surge wasnt popular with republicans.

john mccain's bid ran aground because of his support of immigration reform. he supported bush's plan that included limited "amnesty" for people already in the country illegally.

weren't we all alive last summer? dont we remember what happened then? should they really be telling this lie?

The way I remember it Rumsfield had to be fired and Cheney was overruled just to get the 'surge' off the ground. Edit: and according to wiki, Moveon.org released an ad that identifies the surge strategy as "McCain's idea". [33]. The NYT reports that [presidential candidate] "John Edwards has taken to referring to the administration proposal as 'the McCain Doctrine.'"

sure the democrats slammed him for it.

(he was also not convinced that it was going to work. but that is "spin" as opposed to a lie.)

but did the republicans slam him for it? was he the only republican to support the surge? did mitt romney or rudy giuliani tear him apart for his support of it?

no. the only thing he was slammed for by republicans was his support of immigration reform.

sure the democrats slammed him for it.

(he was also not convinced that it was going to work. but that is "spin" as opposed to a lie.)

but did the republicans slam him for it? was he the only republican to support the surge? did mitt romney or rudy giuliani tear him apart for his support of it?

no. the only thing he was slammed for by republicans was his support of immigration reform.

Public opinion was against the surge, McCain was notorious for the surge (and the immigration reform proposal)...

McCain was carrying his own luggage in the airports for one reason or another, I would say it's impossible to say it was all the fault of one thing and none of the other. Thus, it's pretty hard to suggest it was a lie, I'd say its interpretation. McCain was NOT popular in the beginning, even I wasn't rooting for him (but not for the surge thing)

Public opinion was against the surge, McCain was notorious for the surge (and the immigration reform proposal)...


So... no, then.

So... no, then.

Oh for crying out loud...

Not every republican was for the surge before it happened.

Republicans Against the 'Surge'
01/01/2007

Sen. John McCain, leading a blue-ribbon congressional delegation to Baghdad before Christmas, collected evidence that a "surge" of more U.S. troops is needed in Iraq. But not all his colleagues who accompanied him were convinced. What's more, he will find himself among a dwindling minority inside the Senate Republican caucus when Congress reconvenes this week.

President Bush and McCain, the front-runner for the next presidential nomination, in pressing for a surge of 30,000 more troops, will have trouble finding support from more than 12 out of 49 Republican senators. "It's Alice in Wonderland," Sen. Chuck Hagel, second-ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, told me in describing the proposed surge. "I'm absolutely opposed to sending any more troops to Iraq. It is folly."

What to do about Iraq poses not only a national policy crisis but profound political problems for the Republican Party. Disenchantment with George W. Bush within the GOP runs deep. Republican leaders around the country, anticipating that the 2006 election disaster would prompt an orderly disengagement from Iraq, are shocked that the president now appears ready to add more troops.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18718

Looks like only 12 out of 49 suppported the surge at that stage (the 1/1/07)

Oh for crying out loud...

Not every republican was for the surge before it happened.

Republicans Against the 'Surge'
01/01/2007

Sen. John McCain, leading a blue-ribbon congressional delegation to Baghdad before Christmas, collected evidence that a "surge" of more U.S. troops is needed in Iraq. But not all his colleagues who accompanied him were convinced. What's more, he will find himself among a dwindling minority inside the Senate Republican caucus when Congress reconvenes this week.

President Bush and McCain, the front-runner for the next presidential nomination, in pressing for a surge of 30,000 more troops, will have trouble finding support from more than 12 out of 49 Republican senators. "It's Alice in Wonderland," Sen. Chuck Hagel, second-ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, told me in describing the proposed surge. "I'm absolutely opposed to sending any more troops to Iraq. It is folly."

What to do about Iraq poses not only a national policy crisis but profound political problems for the Republican Party. Disenchantment with George W. Bush within the GOP runs deep. Republican leaders around the country, anticipating that the 2006 election disaster would prompt an orderly disengagement from Iraq, are shocked that the president now appears ready to add more troops.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18718

Looks like only 12 out of 49 suppported the surge at that stage (the 1/1/07)

So... No, then.

"Opposed to" and "Slammed for" are not indentities. So... no, then.

So... No, then.

"Opposed to" and "Slammed for" are not indentities. So... no, then.

What color is the sky in your world?

What color is the sky in your world?

Do you honestly think what you do is 'debate'?

The statement you were responding to said that Republicans didn't slam MCain over the Surge.

Your first response was about public opinion - not a refutation of the original point.

Your second response was about how only a fifth of Republican Senators would allegedly vote to back the surge - so, STILL not a refutation of the point.

This 'what color is the sky' crap is boring and pointless. If you've got nothing, feel free to not bring that to the table.