O Noooooooo! NEW McCain Lies! Big Ones! This Can't Be Good. Can It?

[BT]

They were lying when they said Davis had no recent involvement with Freddy.

HE didn't.

His company did. His company is incorporated. Which gives it all the rights of an individual. And that is who(what) Freddy dealt with.

So no the McCain staff did not lie. If you want it to be a lie, show direct contact between Davis and the honchos at Freddy.

[Michael Tee]

<<His company did. His company is incorporated. Which gives it all the rights of an individual. And that is who(what) Freddy dealt with.>>

LOL - - Yeah, that's a good argument.  You stick with that.  If you want the public to trust you, start drawing legalistic distinctions between the man and his company.  HE didn't get $15K a month, HIS COMPANY got it.  At least you might keep the legal profession vote.  You're right, BT, you're absolutely right.  His company is a separate legal entity.

<<So no the McCain staff did not lie. If you want it to be a lie, show direct contact between Davis and the honchos at Freddy. >>

Oh, that's another one of your misconceptions, BT.  I'd like it to be a lie, but it doesn't have to be a lie.  It can just be something that's sleazy and underhanded enough that the public feels tricked by all the lawyer-talk.  Taken advantage of.  McCain (or his campaign) tells the public, Rick had no involvement with Freddy for three years.  Then the public finds out that Rick's company was getting $15K a month for years, up to last month. 

Well, sorry, my friend, but if I pulled shit like that - - told someone who trusted me that I hadn't gotten a dime off of Mr. X in three years, and then it turns out that MY COMPANY was getting $15k a month for years and was still getting it - - well, BT, there are two possibilities as to how that would be taken, and I don't know anything about your friends, family and business associates, but I can tell you in no uncertain terms, mine would be plenty damn disappointed in me if I had tried to pull that kind of shit on them.

Strictly speaking, you're not even correct on purely legal grounds, because every company can only act through its agents, and Rick was definitely an agent of his own company, quite possibly its only agent.  So as agent of the company, he was responsible for the maintenance of its bank accounts, the collection of its debts, the keeping of its books etc.  As principal shareholder, his personal net worth was affected by every deposit into his company's bank account.  So even as an officer, director and shareholder of that company, he was "involved" with Freddy, contrary to what Insane had told the public.  But I don't need to rely on the legalities - - the sheer deception as perceived by simple common folk who don't think in legalities or draw legalistic distinctions, that's enough to finish off "Mr. Straight Talk" for the rest of his political life.

[Xavier_Onassis]

One of the main purposes of a corporation is to shelter the liability of the individual and his fortune from debtors and the law.
The corporation can blame a bookkeeper or some other employee, and claim that the CEO is not a malefactor, but just another victim.

[BT]

I'd like it to be a lie, but it doesn't have to be a lie.

This is where the rubber meets the road. A lie has to be a lie for it to be a lie. Either a statement is true or it isn't. To call something a lie when it isn't is in itself a lie. And to you calling someone a liar when it doesn't even have to be a lie show how much the truth matters to you.

The New York Times charges that McCain-Palin 2008 campaign manager Rick Davis was paid by Freddie Mac until last month, contrary to previous reporting, as well as statements by this campaign and by Mr. Davis himself.

In fact, the allegation is demonstrably false. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis separated from his consulting firm, Davis Manafort, in 2006. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis has seen no income from Davis Manafort since 2006. Zero. Mr. Davis has received no salary or compensation since 2006. Mr. Davis has received no profit or partner distributions from that firm on any basis -- weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, semi-annual or annual -- since 2006. Again, zero. Neither has Mr. Davis received any equity in the firm based on profits derived since his financial separation from Davis Manafort in 2006.

Further, and missing from the Times' reporting, Mr. Davis has never -- never -- been a lobbyist for either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Mr. Davis has not served as a registered lobbyist since 2005.

Strictly speaking, you're not even correct on purely legal grounds, because every company can only act through its agents, and Rick was definitely an agent of his own company, quite possibly its only agent.  So as agent of the company, he was responsible for the maintenance of its bank accounts, the collection of its debts, the keeping of its books etc.  As principal shareholder, his personal net worth was affected by every deposit into his company's bank account.  So even as an officer, director and shareholder of that company, he was "involved" with Freddy, contrary to what Insane had told the public.

Notice the company name? Notice he had a partner. The partner still active handled that stuff. He could be by collecting the deferred payments be looking after his own portfolio. And that would be true regardless whether Davis was working for the McCain campaign or if Davis were stranded on a desert island and thought to be lost.

But none of that matters to you. Fool the yokels into believing something is there. What do you care if they are fed untruths. Truth is only for the other guy. You stated that fact loud and clear.

[Michael Tee]

<<A lie has to be a lie for it to be a lie. >>

Yeah.  That's a tautology, in case you didn't know.

<<Either a statement is true or it isn't. To call something a lie when it isn't is in itself a lie. And to you calling someone a liar when it doesn't even have to be a lie show how much the truth matters to you.>>

The truth matters a lot more to me than it does to you.  You're willing to lie in a very clever way, presenting a lie tricked out to be technically true so as to deceive the unsophisticated listener.  Every citizen who's ever been tricked by a dishonest lawyer knows the technique.  Your mistake is in thinking the voters, or even some of the participants in this forum, aren't smart enough to know the difference.

What makes it a lie is in the expectations of the listener.   Your audience wants reassurance that McCain's campaign manager isn't a tool of the special interests that McCain is now promising to fight.  McCain is asking for the voters to trust him to fight on their behalf against the corporations that have been ripping them off.  But suspicions have been raised -- McCain's campaign manager has done work for those very corporations.  McCain needs to reassure those voters that he'll fight the corporations and that he has nobody on his team who's also on their (the corporation's) team.  So he promises the voters, Rick has had no involvement with Freddy for three years.  NOT TELLING them that RICK'S COMPANY has been getting $15K a month from Freddy for the last three years.  KNOWING that if they knew about Rick's company, they wouldn't trust McCain and if they didn't know about it, they might trust McCain.  KNOWING that they're not sophisticated enough to ask the technical question, "OK, Rick hasn't had any involvement with Freddy, how about any company owned or controlled by Rick?"  Because they're simple folk, not lawyers.  That's how a scumbag dirtball like McCain can get away with telling them, in effect, "Rick's clean," when in fact, Rick is NOT clean.

So spare me the bullshit please and above all spare me the phony sanctimonious comments about how much the truth matters or doesn't matter to me.  Comparing my respect for the truth to yours would be like comparing the truthfulness of Jesus Christ to that of Josef Goebbels, with me at the Jesus end of the spectrum and you at the other.

[BT]

And yet you are the oe who madethis statement:

I'd like it to be a lie, but it doesn't have to be a lie.

And the truth matters to you?

Please.

[Michael Tee]

IAnd yet you are the one who made this statement:

Quote
I'd like it to be a lie, but it doesn't have to be a lie.
========================================================
"Lie" in the sense that you defined it.  In the sense that "if it's technically true, it can't be a lie."  In that post I was basically using your own definition of "lie" and saying that even if it wasn't technically a lie, it would still be very damaging to McCain.

After reading your response, I went a little deeper into the issue in my next post.  I decided in this post not to use your definition of a lie (i.e. your apparent belief that a technically correct but intentionally deceptive statement cannot be a lie.)  It's a purely semantic problem whether you call the technically correct statement something that is false and dishonest, but false and dishonest in a different way than a lie is false and dishonest, or whether you just call it another form of a lie.  In either case, the technically correct statment that you claim can't be a lie is in fact both false and dishonest - - so whether it's called a lie or not, the point is that it is wrong, that it will be perceived as wrong, and that it will dissuade most people from voting for McCain simply on account of the intentionally deceptive nature of the statment.

<<And the truth matters to you?>>

Yes, and much more than it does to you.  If you were an honest man, you would admit that yourself.  For example, as I just demonstrated above, YOU are willing to give a pass to a statement that is intentionally deceptive but technically correct.  I called it a lie.  If you want to call me on it on a purely semantic basis, I will say, OK, it's not a lie in the sense that it's technically correct, but it's a lie in the sense that it's technically correct but intentionally deceptive.

What makes me so much more careful of the truth than you are, is that you are willing to give McCain a pass on a statement that might have been technically correct, but was intentionally deceptive, but I was not.  You, a person of little regard for the truth, favoured a sleazy lawyer's trick on an honest but simple individual, whereas a truly honest person such as myself would not tolerate it.  Which actually is what made me so pissed off at your sanctimonious hypocrisy.  Usually, I don't really give a shit.  I realize people are what they are, and I'm pretty tolerant about it in general.

<<Please>>

Please what?  Please spare me the bullshit?  That oughtta be my line.  I'm the one on the receiving end.

[BT]

I'm the one on the receiving end.

And well deserved.

You are the one recommending ads going after McCain about the Keating 5 even though he was exonerated.

You are the one perpetuating the cunt trollop rumor even though it is poorly sourced and that single source had financial reasons to push it. 

You are the one questioning whether McCain was injured and still injured when he was released from captivity. The man still can't raise his arms over his head.

You don't care whether what you say is true. You just want people to believe it enough to influence their vote.

Over the years i have read you slam Rove and the gOP for their lying ways.

WTF makes you any better.

[Plane]

Over the years i have read you slam Rove and the gOP for their lying ways.

WTF makes you any better.

I think he has ambition to do it better than Rove and the gOP .

[Michael Tee]

<<You are the one recommending ads going after McCain about the Keating 5 even though he was exonerated.>>

Exonerated my ass.  It was a whitewash.  The ads - - and I took great pains to point this out - - were to be limited to the actual facts of the case INCLUDING video clips of Americans who had been ruined by Charles Keating; they were to refer to the fact that the Senate Ethics Committee had found McCain had done nothing wrong; and the viewer would be asked if he or she also thought that McCain had done nothing wrong.

<<You are the one perpetuating the cunt trollop rumor even though it is poorly sourced and that single source had financial reasons to push it. >>

That's ridiculous - - there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to indicate that it's true - - Schechter has never published false information to sell a book, would lose what is presently an unblemished reputation if the story were proven false, did not allege the words were spoken without witnesses but in the presence of three reporters, which would leave him open to being crucified in a libel action if he couldn't produce a single witness; the McCains failed to sue for defamatory libel; and McCain is known to have uttered numerous vile and degrading insults of other women.  Against all of that, all you can raise is the possibility that Schechter, a man of previously unblemished reputation, might be lying to hype book sales.   That is frankly ridiculous.

<<You are the one questioning whether McCain was injured and still injured when he was released from captivity. The man still can't raise his arms over his head.>>

Yeah, that's terrible isn't it?  And I bet O.J. still can't pull that glove over his hand either.

<<You don't care whether what you say is true. You just want people to believe it enough to influence their vote.>>

In the case of McCain, I took the example of the Swift Boating of John Kerrey.  If the Republicans can pull that kind of shit on a Democratic candidate, I figure it's only fair that they face the same kind of shit themselves.  I don't know for a fact that McCain was tortured, I DO know he's a liar and a louse, so it's entirely possible he faked the whole thing - - especially since he DID broadcast for the Vietnamese, so (like Schechter) he's got a motive to lie about the torture - - to excuse the broadcasts he made, allegedly in return for favourable treatment of his injuries.

<<Over the years i have read you slam Rove and the gOP for their lying ways.

<<WTF makes you any better.>>

They're a bunch of fucking liars.  I tell the truth.  They're a bunch of war-mongering bastards responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.  I'm not responsible for the deaths of anyone and moreover I speak out against those bastards every chance I get.  They are torturers and murderers.  I am against torture.  I spent about 15 years in Amnesty International opposing torture and working against it.  Are you fucking kidding me?  What makes me better than them? How about EVERYTHING?  EVERYTHING makes me better than them.

[BT]

EVERYTHING makes me better than them.

Judging by the way you rationalize your sleaze in everything else i brought up, I'm sure you believe you are a paragon of virtue.

But the fact remains the only purveyor of the cunt trollop story on record  is Schecter, who conveniently dropped the bomb two days before his book came out and was astroturfed through the progressive blogosphere better than most marketing plans are launched. Yeah I'm sure he had altruistic motives. 

[BT]

I tell the truth.  They're a bunch of war-mongering bastards responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.  I'm not responsible for the deaths of anyone and moreover I speak out against those bastards every chance I get.  They are torturers and murderers.  I am against torture.  I spent about 15 years in Amnesty International opposing torture and working against it.  Are you fucking kidding me?

Sure you do.

I'd like it to be a lie, but it doesn't have to be a lie.

[Michael Tee]

<<Judging by the way you rationalize your sleaze in everything else i brought up, I'm sure you believe you are a paragon of virtue.>>

Translation:  I threw a bunch of ridiculous crap at you and none of it stuck, so now I'll try sarcasm.

<<But the fact remains the only purveyor of the cunt trollop story on record  is Schecter, who conveniently dropped the bomb two days before his book came out and was astroturfed through the progressive blogosphere better than most marketing plans are launched. Yeah I'm sure he had altruistic motives. >>

We're going around in circles here - - there was plenty of circumstantial evidence to back up Schechter, whose reputation was never previously blemished and the only thing you have against the story is that Schechter had a book to flog.  BFD.  I've got a lot more reasons to believe Schecter than you have to disbelieve.

[Michael Tee]

<<I'd like it to be a lie, but it doesn't have to be a lie.>>

Fully explained in a previous post.  Not going through it again.  Nice try.

[BT]

Schechter, whose reputation was never previously blemished

You keep saying that like it is a fact. Why isn't he working in the field in which he has a masters. He was a polling expert for Clinton in 96. Why didn't he work for them in 2000, 2006 and 2008? What happened that he writes books or hire and keeps his name in the news writing for second string blogs?

Circumstantial evidence says his credentials might in fact be sullied.