McCain cheated at Q&A Forum, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times

reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 10:04 PM by poet1b

So what the heck is the cone of silence?

Is this some special room? And if so, why didn't the people running the show make sure McCain was in this special 'cone of silence'? Sounds like a bunch of nonsense to me.

Let's pretend that McCain isn't the kind of politician who answers random questions all the time, who gives very open access to the press. This is McCain's signature event.

Of course McCain must have cheated, he is the root of all evil, while Obama is a saint.

Oh, and the Obamaphiles never say anything bad about McCain. this garbage isn't worth anyones time.

reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 10:25 PM by jhill76

reply to post by poet1b

Oh, and the Obamaphiles never say anything bad about McCain. this garbage isn't worth anyones time.

Ha, it's funny how if someone posts something about Obama or McCain, somebody will always come in and say this is crap, or this is garbage. Classic. This goes both ways to both candidates...

reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 10:31 PM by jam321

reply to post by jhill76

I think the credibility issue goes to the Pastor who said McCain was in the cone of silence. He also later admitted that he gave both of them the first two questions and general themes.

This goes both ways to both candidates...

Agree 100%

[edit on 17-8-2008 by jam321]

reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 10:33 PM by jhill76

reply to post by jam321

Right. But, why didn't McCain denounce this, instead of going along with it. So, he also holds the blame.

reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 10:33 PM by AndrewTB

It really doesn't matter. Heck the fact he heard them doesnt make it any more different than a typical debate. Even then, he sure worked up some great answers in a very limited amount of time. Not only were the answers great, but in fact very consistent with McCain's past.

reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 10:38 PM by jam321

reply to post by jhill76

I won't deny that. He should have.

Personally, they all should have giving warning in advance that they knew more or less what the questions would be.

I was under the impression the candidates didn't know what questions would be asked.

reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 10:40 PM by jhill76

reply to post by jam321

Agreed. I feel that a person should not have an advantage over the other, and make it seem as though both were in the dark, which in fact this was not the case.

In my view, I will pick a person that I feel can answer questions without advice. (I know a person can't know everything, but we are not asking quantum physics here.) But to date, it has been neither candidate.

So for the people who made an assumption, I support Obama, sorry this is just not the case for me.

[edit on 17-8-2008 by jhill76]

reply posted on 17-8-2008 @ 11:01 PM by Schaden

The pastor is an idiot. I saw him squirming on CNN. The interviewer asked him if he knew McCain wasn't at the venue and how he could have cheated and watched Obama's questioning on TV or radio. The pastor said we asked McCain if he was completely isolated and he said yes so I believe him! He conceded the "cone of silence" was a cadre of secret service.

McCain was hovering around in some limo with with his top advisers and a TV tuned to Fox News. His interview was one long political stump speech. He was so quick to answer some of those questions because he heard them in advance !
A lot of his replies seemed memorized. This has tones of Bush's bulge in the 2004 debate.

reply posted on 18-8-2008 @ 01:44 AM by southern_Guardian

McCain is a flip flopper and a cheat.

hmmm not surprised.... but then again Im not surprised at the people defending him. I mean people did vote for Bush twice. Ignorance is bliss.

reply posted on 18-8-2008 @ 02:02 AM by poet1b

reply to post by jhill76

The reason I made the sarcastic comment about Obamaphiles claiming that no body ever said bad things about Obama, is that these same people constantly trash McCain, while crying about people trashing Obama. This whining has been going on for too long.

Let's pretend that the Straight Talk express is not John McCain's big thing, and that he doesn't routinely answer questions like this all the time, only then can you pretend that McCain had to know the questions ahead of time. Just because Obama is bad at answering questions doesn't mean that McCain has to be.

Let's face it, the only time Obama is good is when he is delivering a well rehearsed speech. For all the age differences, McCain clearly has the sharper, more responsive mind.

reply posted on 18-8-2008 @ 02:58 AM by Andrew E. Wiggin

reply to post by poet1b

I'd like to take one line and remind you of this thread Please stop with bastardized name calling.

McCain has employed a typical conservative tactic: "i cheated, but i can cover it up"

But as i said, its okay.

I can promise you that this will haunt McCain. He will regret answers like "i dunno....5 million"

...you mean to tell me mccan doesnt know what financial line in the sand distingushes a rich person from a middle class or a poor person?

Isnt that "important" to know when deciding things like tax laws?

And i can promise you the obama campaign can figure other ways to use his lack of response agianst him, that are far far more accurate and on track than mine.

[edit on 8/18/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

reply posted on 18-8-2008 @ 03:53 AM by stonespiral

As far as I'm concerned, I generally EXPECT that the candidates have the questions ahead of time at every event. I assume that both are being seedy (and by the way i hate hate HATE that the correct word is 'both' and not the phrase 'all the candidates') and out to decieve all of us.

In general from what I've seen, McCain isn't a great speaker as is, he always seems like the kid on the playground who's a little to worked up about something. Obama, well he's just crazy charismatic, and in my experience I don't usually trust those folks, they decieve to easily.

Stickin' by it, I don't care if he dropped out, I'm writing in Mike Gravel.

reply posted on 18-8-2008 @ 04:05 AM by Enigma Publius

Originally posted 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.

i agree. It's unfortunate how just bringing up something like this and the lefts and rights start flying. I always thought it strange that growing up me and my cousin Jeff were unseperable, agreed on everything, and wanted to be just like the other one, but as we turned into young men, he veered "right" while i zig-zaged "left" and we couldn't be around eachother without getting into "discussions" that sometimes got fairly heated. But now, we agree on something finially: neither one of us has faith in either candidate, and we are not even going to vote. Personally, i could care less about who wins, they both will follow the money. And anyway, If we don't know the rules of the format, then we can't say Mcain cheated, right?

reply posted on 18-8-2008 @ 05:07 AM by AndrewTB

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by poet1b

I'd like to take one line and remind you of this thread Please stop with bastardized name calling.

McCain has employed a typical conservative tactic: "i cheated, but i can cover it up"
[edit on 8/18/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

Tell that to:

John Edwards (cheater and liar)
Hillary Clinton (liar)
Kwame Kilpatrick (cheater)
Bill Clinton (cheater and liar)
Eliot Spitzer (cheater and liar)

and last but not least.....

BARACK OBAMA (flat out liar)

[edit on 8/18/2008 by AndrewTB]

[edit on 8/18/2008 by AndrewTB]

reply posted on 18-8-2008 @ 06:07 AM by Dronetek

Hey nice, another case of the media carrying water for Obama. This is what happens when Obama screws up and needs the US media to cover for him. Just look at how all the Obamatrons here latch on to anything that will distract them from the fact Obama is an illusion. They have absolutely no proof, but they spread the lie to help Obama from his poor performance.

Think about that. A prominent person in the media is using her position to spread lies that hurt McCain and help Obama. What proof do they have of any of these claims? Why does Andrea Mitchel constantly spread Obama campaign talking points? Because the media is controlled by democrats who are hijacking this election.

She did the exact same thing with the troop visit, claiming McCain had something to do with Obama visit being canceled. Again no proof, but spreading talking points for the purpose of helping Obama.

Said Mitchell on Morning Joe on July 25th:

Clearly, people in the campaign are really angry . . . So, you know, the anger here in the campaign is pretty intense at the Pentagon. They feel that the military are drawing some lines--they're not saying this publicly of course--but drawing lines that they might have drawn for other people . . . They thought that they were, you know, you know, no-win situation, that the Pentagon, perhaps the military with cooperation from some Republican operatives and, that's the sort of scuttlebutt, that there have been some foreign policy advisers of John McCain with connections in the Pentagon who had something to do with this.But that is, perhaps, just the normal political paranoia of the season.

newsbusters.org...

[edit on 18-8-2008 by Dronetek]

reply posted on 18-8-2008 @ 07:33 AM by scotty18

Originally posted 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.

jam- I was making fun of the other people in this thread who are spinning, double talking and flat out avoiding answering tough questions, like Andy Wiggen.

[edit on 18-8-2008 by scotty18]

reply posted on 18-8-2008 @ 08:28 AM by jam321

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

You sound like a good candidate, promising things you can't deliver on....

Obama definition of rich is not perfect either. I have always dreamed of being rich one day. But by no way was I dreaming of $250,000.

As far as for Income tax purposes it doesn't matter what Mccains or Obamas definition of rich is.

You better find out what the definition of Rich is to Congress. They are the ones who are going to create the bill.

scotty18 - No problem.

reply posted on 18-8-2008 @ 09:45 AM by poet1b

reply to post by Dronetek

I have never seen any pol get so much positive spin from the media. Obama must be the most sold out pol in history. The smoother the player, the dirtier the deal.

reply posted on 18-8-2008 @ 10:51 AM by Anonymous ATS

reply to post by jhill76

If you're not voting, then really you have no right to even engage in such a discussion. There are plenty of other candidates to vote for, and while it is pretty much a guarantee that no-one other than McCain or Obama will win, by choosing to not vote at all you help to perpetuate the system that has allowed for our government to slip into the role it has today.

Pick a side, any side, and vote, because even if you lose your voice will have been heard.

reply posted on 18-8-2008 @ 11:00 AM by kettlebellysmith

reply to post by poet1b

poet, you are showing your age. Find the old "Get Smart" series with Don Adams and you'll get the joke. When something secret had to be discussed Max and the Chief would go under the Cone Of Silence. The only problem was they couldn't hear each other, but everyone outside the Cone could hear everything that was said. That show was a real hoot!