Are you suggesting McCain should have been dishonest with his opinion about Paris Hilton?

Its sad how people would prefer for politicians to lie.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Are you suggesting McCain should have been dishonest with his opinion about Paris Hilton?

Its sad how people would prefer for politicians to lie.

Not at all, There are tons of other examples he could have used to draw his points.

I'm saying that he isn't aware of the fact that those he is using as examples of celebrity are in fact people in his camp.




[edit on 31-7-2008 by Quazga]

I thought it was bad if politicians catered to people just because they gave them money?

How is he supposed to know the names of every single contributor?

And even if someone contributed money, does that mean he/she can no longer be critisised?

It's nice to see a candidate that's not afraid to speak the truth, even when it may cost him a few votes. If only all the candidates were so honest and not just pandering for votes..

No disrespect to you, Ive been liking a lot of your posts, but this one infuriates me.

Why? Because it exerts pressure on a candidate to

a) Be perfect (its impossible to memorize all contributors)
b) Lie or
c) Cater to people who give them money.



[edit on 31-7-2008 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by Skyfloating
No disrespect to you, Ive been liking a lot of your posts, but this one infuriates me.

Why? Because it exerts pressure on a candidate to

a) Be perfect
b) Lie or
c) Cater to people who give them money.

d) to not use that person as an example to begin with.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
No disrespect to you, Ive been liking a lot of your posts, but this one infuriates me.

Why? Because it exerts pressure on a candidate to

a) Be perfect (its impossible to memorize all contributors)
b) Lie or
c) Cater to people who give them money.



[edit on 31-7-2008 by Skyfloating]

Dont' all posts do this?

Any post that is a criticism of any candidate, for the most part, does those 3 things.....

Should every thread present how mccain screwed up AND how obama screwed up in the exact same fashion, so as to not appear "one sided", or is it fair to say that if there are occurances of how obama did the same wrong as mccain, that someone can just go create another "anti-obama" thread about the situation?


Candidates blast each other on these grounds, with expectations of perfection, perfect memorization, etc.

Thats all i really have to say



[edit on 7/31/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

[edit on 7/31/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

Looks like McCain has a bus of his own, which he likes to throw his supporters under.

Well, atleast McCains ex-wife will have some company underneath there.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
No disrespect to you, Ive been liking a lot of your posts, but this one infuriates me.

Why? Because it exerts pressure on a candidate to

a) Be perfect (its impossible to memorize all contributors)
b) Lie or
c) Cater to people who give them money.



[edit on 31-7-2008 by Skyfloating]

Fair enough. I just thought it was kinda funny. Not a real issue thing.

I was just amazed that my wife's TMZ readings had anything to do with the blogs and forums I'm involved with.





[edit on 31-7-2008 by Quazga]

Yeah, Obama wouldn't dare going against someone who gave him money. Didn't that used to be a bad quality in a candidate before this thread?

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin


Im not saying the system is perfect. Im not saying "obama" is perfect. But what i am saying is that, here in ATS alone, there are about 10 "anti-obama" threads for every 1 "anti-mccain" thread, and you chose to speak out against a anti-mccain thread (no offense)

We have people saying there´s a pro-obama bias here and we have others saying there´s a pro McCain bias here.

Thats nonsense (I remind you of a thread of mine you recently participated in in which I asked people to help me vote...in that instance, the majority of posts were pro-Obama).

And besides, Obama vs. McCain is not the topic here.

The topic is that people would prefer politicians that lie in their faces with a bright smile. This goes for both candidates.

Originally posted by Misfit
d) to not use that person as an example to begin with.

Bingo! Or at least check with her before he uses her image. Wouldn't that be only right? Of course, he used her image as a negative association, so checking with her probably wasn't a concern.

To be fair to McCain, someone in his campaign screwed this up. Whoever made this ad should have checked about repercussions. It's a clear sign of an amateur.

Originally posted by Skyfloating


And besides, Obama vs. McCain is not the topic here.

The topic is that people would prefer politicians that lie in their faces with a bright smile. This goes for both candidates.

Actually - that is your interpretation.

The Topic is : mcCain bashes heiress of hilton hotels.

MY reasoning is that its hilarious. Not only for what two others have already pointed out in this thread, but for the mere fact that if Obama were to create a like-wise ad, it'd be the talk to the right-wingers for days (we've all seen it happen before)

And as politics go:

Blast my candidate while you can, because my turn is coming. And i've never been one to pass up my turn.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The topic is that people would prefer politicians that lie in their faces with a bright smile.

The topic is actually McCain bashes daughter of contributor. And I strongly disagree with your statement that people prefer politicians to lie to their faces. That's an assumption you made about the intention of the OP and I don't think we can say that it's true at all.

Paris Hilton is a public figure, so her permission is not required for the use her image. It's done all the time in the real World..