McCain cheated at Q&A Forum, page 1

McCain cheated at Q&A Forum, page

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times

Topic started on 17-8-2008 @ 09:27 PM by jhill76

Pastor Warren, the host of last night's forum was just on CNN. In an interview with Rick Sanchez the pastor admitted McCain was not even at the Church for the first half hour of the event. This admission comes as a surprise to those of us who watched the event and were told many times that McCain was at the Church and in isolation.

Source

Video Pastor Rick confirms McCain not in "Cone of Silence" during Obama Q&A.

Link

According to MSNBC, Obama knew what was going on:

MS. ANDREA MITCHELL: Oh, absolutely. And, you know, there was the crisp, immediate, forceful response by John McCain, clearly in a comfort zone because he was with his base. And Barack Obama, taking a risk in going there but seeing an opportunity. And a much more nuanced approach. The Obama people must feel that he didn't do quite as well as they might have wanted to in that context, because that -- what they're putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MS. MITCHELL: He seemed so well prepared.

Source

It just didn't ring true. McCain has never been able to make comments in succinct fashion before. Now we know, he heard the questions and prepared all his responses. Only, one thing, he should have waited for the question before giving the answer.

[edit on 17-8-2008 by jhill76]

reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 09:28 PM by scotty18

Like this means anything. Even if he or Obama were in isolation while the other was having there turn their advisors would have taken notes and done a quick prep.

reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 09:30 PM by jhill76

reply to post by scotty18

It might not mean anything to you, it just might to someone else. But, everything should be laid out on the table. I see people bashing Obama all day long, let's see the other side on ATS also.

reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 09:34 PM by Andrew E. Wiggin

reply to post by scotty18

Like it means anything
It means McCain was scared so badly he felt he had to cheat.

That says something positive to me

Keep it up Obama

[edit on 8/17/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 09:34 PM by TH3ON3

I had a funny feeling that McCain got the questions ahead of time, just like we should expect the right to do. I used to be a part of that same right until I found out how wrong that right was.

reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 09:38 PM by scotty18

Could one of you guys please post the rules that said either candidate must be in isolation while the other is on? If these rules aren't there then it isn't cheating. Personally I wouldn't care if either of them did this, but it does seem like some people are reaching for something on this one.

reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 09:41 PM by Andrew E. Wiggin

reply to post by scotty18

Hmmm

So the fact that there is a silence cone - and they were directed to set in it has nothing to do with it?

Fine, let McCain have it. I'm telling you. in 2 weeks time - this debate and mccains answer will haunt him and cost him even more credibility.

You cannot have empty answers that evaporate into a sea of applause when you have nothing to back them up.

If the question is "what color is the sky"

and your answer is

"those mountains are brown"

It'll come back to haunt you. McCain will prove me right. Wait. 2 weeks. You'll see.

reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 09:42 PM by jhill76

reply to post by scotty18

Rules or no rules. I feel that a candidate should not know the questions in advance if it is supposed to be a free form forum. If one candidate didn't know the questions and the other had a chance to listen to them in advance, that is cheating.

Plus, on top of that we were told he was in isolation. Why didn't McCain step up and say, no I wasn't. We all know the answer to that.

reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 09:43 PM by scotty18

It's kind of funny how I haven't said one thing to say which side I prefer or will vote for but you and others are trying to turn it into a political argument. I guess that makes it clear which side you take and will fight for no matter what.

reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 09:45 PM by Andrew E. Wiggin

Originally posted by scotty18
It's kind of funny how I haven't said one thing to say which side I prefer or will vote for but you and others are trying to turn it into a political argument. I guess that makes it clear which side you take and will fight for no matter what.

Your entire question was baited.

We bit.

It isnt about pro-obama or anti-mccain its about mccains fear of Obama resulting in him cheating.

"McCain is in isolation and cannot hear" doesnt mean "mccain is listening and will prepare some answers to rebuttle yours"

if this is the only way mccain can win - i guess we're in store for another year 2000 election season...

reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 09:46 PM by jhill76

reply to post by scotty18

That's funny, because in my original stance I said both sides should be laid out. Plus, sorry sir, but I am not voting!

reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 09:48 PM by scotty18

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin

Originally posted by scotty18
It's kind of funny how I haven't said one thing to say which side I prefer or will vote for but you and others are trying to turn it into a political argument. I guess that makes it clear which side you take and will fight for no matter what.

Your entire question was baited.

We bit.

It isnt about pro-obama or anti-mccain its about mccains fear of Obama resulting in him cheating.

"McCain is in isolation and cannot hear" doesnt mean "mccain is listening and will prepare some answers to rebuttle yours"

if this is the only way mccain can win - i guess we're in store for another year 2000 election season...

Thanks for proving my point. There is nothing worse then blind faith, which is what you are giving an excellent example of. By the way, the only question I see was asking for the list of rules, since you are claiming one candidate cheated. You said "we bit" so you must not be talking about that since you are the only one responding since then so what question are you talking about?

reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 09:49 PM by scotty18

Originally posted by jhill76
reply to post by scotty18

That's funny, because in my original stance I said both sides should be laid out. Plus, sorry sir, but I am not voting!

Huge difference between "laying everything on the table" and starting a thread claiming someone was cheating.

reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 09:50 PM by jhill76

reply to post by scotty18

No, if all I see is Obama doing wrong, then I have to counter that and provide McCain's wrong doing. So in essence that is laying everything out on the table. Because Obamas wrong doing has been posted already.

[edit on 17-8-2008 by jhill76]

reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 09:54 PM by scotty18

Originally posted by jhill76
reply to post by scotty18

No, if all I see is Obama doing wrong, then I have to counter that and provide McCain's wrong doing. So in essence that is laying everything out on the table. Because Obamas wrong doing has been posted already.

[edit on 17-8-2008 by jhill76]

1) Where are the rules McCain broke? What deception, fraud or trickery did McCain commit? Did he say he was in isolation? If so I never heard it. Most people would say cheating would be breaking the rules, so let's see some rules.

2) Once again if you are simply "laying everything out on the table" why do you label it in a way to provoke a certain emotion.

reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 09:55 PM by Andrew E. Wiggin

reply to post by scotty18

You asked a "trick question" and we bit. We went for it. So as to begin a debate.

its no fun if me and the OP set here and agree with each other all day long.

You claim its not cheating because there may not be a rule against it.

Fine. Whatever your definition of cheating is - hey - whatever floats your boat man.

But my definition is if you say "senator mccain cannot hear" and then you allow senator mccain to hear the questions, you are giving mccain an unfair advantage.

But he still didnt capitalize on it like he could've

Any doper with 1/2 a brain stem could pick up on the fact that he used "my friends" WAY too much - talked about his POW camp too excessively - and skitted around very simple questions like "how do you define rich"?

McCain played to his audience. The audience was geared for McCain, and he STILL didnt take full advantage.

I'm telling you.

Cheating or no cheating. 2 weeks - and this will haunt mccain. IN a big way.

reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 10:00 PM by scotty18

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin

You asked a "trick question" and we bit. We went for it. So as to begin a debate.

Please show me the question I asked.

its no fun if me and the OP set here and agree with each other all day long.

Um, ok

You claim its not cheating because there may not be a rule against it.

Fine. Whatever your definition of cheating is - hey - whatever floats your boat man.

But my definition is if you say "senator mccain cannot hear" and then you allow senator mccain to hear the questions, you are giving mccain an unfair advantage.

So McCain cheated because the guy running the show said the wrong thing? Wow, that is one messed up definition of cheating. I guess I can assume that you are a cheater, because using this definition 99% of people would be. Either way you have adequately proven my point.

But he still didnt capitalize on it like he could've

Any doper with 1/2 a brain stem could pick up on the fact that he used "my friends" WAY too much - talked about his POW camp too excessively - and skitted around very simple questions like "how do you define rich"?

McCain played to his audience. The audience was geared for McCain, and he STILL didnt take full advantage.

I'm telling you.

Cheating or no cheating. 2 weeks - and this will haunt mccain. IN a big way.

It's funny you say this, because, with the exception of the waaaay left, even the liberal media is talking about how well McCain did.

reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 10:00 PM by jam321

I think they both had a head up.

Ross says the whole event only came about because of the relationship Warren has with both men. He said they all agreed to assure a “level field, “McCain would not hear the questions or Senator Obama’s answers.” The pastor spoke to each candidate this week, giving the general themes. Warren decided to tell them each the first two questions in advance, about the three wisest people you know, and the biggest moral failings.

source

reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 10:02 PM by scotty18

Originally posted by jam321
I think they both had a head up.

Ross says the whole event only came about because of the relationship Warren has with both men. He said they all agreed to assure a “level field, “McCain would not hear the questions or Senator Obama’s answers.” The pastor spoke to each candidate this week, giving the general themes. Warren decided to tell them each the first two questions in advance, about the three wisest people you know, and the biggest moral failings.

source

Lies, all lies.

reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 10:03 PM by jam321

reply to post by scotty18

Dude, what is the lie. The pastor admitted he gave both general themes and the first two questions.

I see it as pretty fair that he did that for both not one.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^