Welcome to the
Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum

This is a community where people come in search of marriage related support, answers, or encouragement. Also, information about the Marriage Builders principles can be found in the books available for sale in the Marriage Builders® Bookstore.
If you would like to join our guidance forum, please read the Announcement Forum for instructions, rules, & guidelines.
The members of this community are peers and not professionals. Professional coaching is available by clicking on the link titled Coaching Center at the top of this page.
We trust that you will find the Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum to be a helpful resource for you. We look forward to your participation.
Once you have reviewed all the FAQ, tech support and announcement information, if you still have problems that are not addressed, please e-mail the administrators at mbrestored@gmail.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985
Likes: 1
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985
Likes: 1
Would it be a "smear" to expose Elizabeth Dole for attending a dinner with a Klan Grand Wizard and accept donations from him? [we do know they attended the same dinner]

I wonder if folks here would have the same objections to a commercial that exposed Doles connection to the KLAN? Would you all be screaming "SMEAR, SMEAR!!" If it were true would that be a SMEAR to expose her?


"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.." Theodore Roosevelt

Exposure 101


Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Originally Posted by MelodyLane
Why would he be upset? I have been called a CANADIAN before. It didn't upset me. I simply set the record straight. I told them i was from the country of TEXAS. grin

Well, as you said, lies are wrong. With a few days before an election, there is no luxury of time to "set the record straight". That's why they call them "October surprises" - no time for the other party to react. I am sure you would not be happy to be called Canadian when you are standing in line to cast you ballot and they tell you that you can't because you are not a US citizen.

AGG


Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Originally Posted by MelodyLane
Would it be a "smear" to expose Elizabeth Dole for attending a dinner with a Klan Grand Wizard and accept donations from him? [we do know they attended the same dinner]

I wonder if folks here would have the same objections to a commercial that exposed Doles connection to the KLAN? Would you all be screaming "SMEAR, SMEAR!!" If it were true would that be a SMEAR to expose her?

Has anyone aired those commercials? I don't believe so.

And yes, if someone tried to imply that Dole was a closet Grand Wizard herself, that would be a smear, and I would speak out against it as I speak out against the "Godless" accusation.

AGG


Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985
Likes: 1
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by AGoodGuy
Originally Posted by MelodyLane
Even so, Hagan was not accused of being an athiest, she was accused of being affiliated with them. And we are known by the company we keep.

Nope. "Godless Americans and Kay Hagan. She hid from cameras. Took godless money," the narrator says. "What did Kay Hagan promise in return?". The ad then plays a clip of a female voice saying, "There is no God." The clear suggestion is that it is Hagan's view. Now you can play dumb all you want, and say "oh, but it didn't say Hagan thinks there is no God", but a picture is worth a thousand words, and that is what Dole is counting on.

Sorry, but that is not a "clear implication." It never said that Hagan was an athiest. Rather it spoke of her affiliations. When I watched it, I didn't wonder if she is an athiest, but wondered about her connections. So no, it is not clear and I did not take it that way.


"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.." Theodore Roosevelt

Exposure 101


Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985
Likes: 1
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by AGoodGuy
Originally Posted by MelodyLane
Would it be a "smear" to expose Elizabeth Dole for attending a dinner with a Klan Grand Wizard and accept donations from him? [we do know they attended the same dinner]

I wonder if folks here would have the same objections to a commercial that exposed Doles connection to the KLAN? Would you all be screaming "SMEAR, SMEAR!!" If it were true would that be a SMEAR to expose her?

Has anyone aired those commercials? I don't believe so.

And yes, if someone tried to imply that Dole was a closet Grand Wizard herself, that would be a smear, and I would speak out against it as I speak out against the "Godless" accusation.

AGG

You missed my point. I said IF IT WERE TRUE, would it be a smear?


"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.." Theodore Roosevelt

Exposure 101


Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985
Likes: 1
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by AGoodGuy
That's why they call them "October surprises" - no time for the other party to react.

Oh no, I see her reacting just fine. OVERREACTING, rather.


"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.." Theodore Roosevelt

Exposure 101


Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Originally Posted by MelodyLane
You missed my point. I said IF IT WERE TRUE, would it be a smear?

Truth is never a smear. It may be negative, but not a smear. E.g. if Obama started running ads saying "McCain is a cheater", I'd think less of Obama, not of McCain. Not because he'd be untruthful, but because it would be something that had nothing to do with the issues.

Same here. Even if Dole made it clear that she was talking about associations (which she did not do, as her implications are very clear), it'd reflect poor judgment on her. That's why I hope this earns her the "go home" ticket at the polls.

AGG


Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Originally Posted by MelodyLane
Rather it spoke of her affiliations. When I watched it, I didn't wonder if she is an athiest, but wondered about her connections.

So let me ask you again, if I shake hands with a black man, am I black? Is it not important to get this "truth" out to help out those who wonder about my connections? dontknow.

AGG


Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Originally Posted by MelodyLane
Originally Posted by AGoodGuy
That's why they call them "October surprises" - no time for the other party to react.

Oh no, I see her reacting just fine. OVERREACTING, rather.

And that is how it should be. Call out the smear tactic for what it is, and have it blow up in their face.

AGG


Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985
Likes: 1
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by AGoodGuy
Same here. Even if Dole made it clear that she was talking about associations (which she did not do, as her implications are very clear), it'd reflect poor judgment on her. That's why I hope this earns her the "go home" ticket at the polls.

AGG

AGG, she most certainly DID focus on her associations, you quoted the words yourself. And her associations are very relevant. The "implication" is clearly in the eye of the beholder and not relevant. There is only something wrong if the association is UNTRUE. If true, a voter might find it very relevant.


"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.." Theodore Roosevelt

Exposure 101


Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985
Likes: 1
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by AGoodGuy
Originally Posted by MelodyLane
Rather it spoke of her affiliations. When I watched it, I didn't wonder if she is an athiest, but wondered about her connections.

So let me ask you again, if I shake hands with a black man, am I black? Is it not important to get this "truth" out to help out those who wonder about my connections? dontknow.

AGG

Now you are being silly and just wasting my time.


"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.." Theodore Roosevelt

Exposure 101


Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Originally Posted by MelodyLane
And her associations are very relevant.

Actually, you are the one being silly without apparently realizing it. Let's examine the slogan you are using, one that has been used ad nauseum by Palin and Co.

"Associations are relevant". OK, let's examine that. What is an "association"? Does the phrase "association with" have any meaning without providing additional context? No, it does not. There is a huge difference between attending a fundraiser which included a (fill in the blank - atheist, KKK Grand Wizard, tax evader) and being "associated" with them, as in being closely connected to them, following their ideology, etc.

All this "associations are relevant" nonsense is just that, nonsense, because it provides no context. Did the ad say that she went to a fundraiser where one of the 40 people was an atheist? No. It said she was "associating" with Godless people.

AGG



Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Originally Posted by MelodyLane
There is only something wrong if the association is UNTRUE.

And that is precisely my point. The implied "association" being made by Dole is completely untrue. This "association" is as absurd as saying that anyone "associating" with Gingrich or McCain probably has weak morals because they are associating with folks who are both cheaters. "It's relevant", you'd say. Actually, it's absurd.

AGG


Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985
Likes: 1
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985
Likes: 1
Other voters might disagree with you, but that is ok. You have your own criteria; others have theirs.


"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.." Theodore Roosevelt

Exposure 101


Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985
Likes: 1
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 92,985
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by AGoodGuy
And that is precisely my point. The implied "association" being made by Dole is completely untrue.

No, we only have Hagan's attorneys word that is untrue, which is meaningless.


"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.." Theodore Roosevelt

Exposure 101


Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Originally Posted by MelodyLane
Other voters might disagree with you, but that is ok. You have your own criteria; others have theirs.

You are right. Dole's ad was designed to be an information campaign, not a tool to discredit Hagan. Of course.

An image of Hagan, with a female voiceover saying "there is no God" is not intended to imply that it was Hagan saying that. Of course not. It's just a coincidence. Oops, another pig just flew by the window... crazy.

AGG


Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
Originally Posted by AGoodGuy
Actually, you are the one being silly without apparently realizing it. Let's examine the slogan you are using, one that has been used ad nauseum by Palin and Co.

"Associations are relevant". OK, let's examine that. What is an "association"? Does the phrase "association with" have any meaning without providing additional context? No, it does not. There is a huge difference between attending a fundraiser which included a (fill in the blank - atheist, KKK Grand Wizard, tax evader) and being "associated" with them, as in being closely connected to them, following their ideology, etc.

All this "associations are relevant" nonsense is just that, nonsense, because it provides no context. Did the ad say that she went to a fundraiser where one of the 40 people was an atheist? No. It said she was "associating" with Godless people.

AGG

You know what the basic problem seems to be, AGG?

The liberals LOVE to hurl these sorts of innuendos and accusations at the "right," and they scream bloody murder when they "get some of their own medicine."

Associations ARE important to voters simply because the voters will evaluate for themselves whether or not they think the "association" is just a "political" thing or if it seems to have such repeated consistency as to REVEAL the true "feelings" and "leanings" of a candidate.

Obama is not much different from many liberals, except for being "hard core far left" of even most liberals and the furthest left of all the current Senators. THAT IS an "association" that is both proven and claimed BY Obama himself.

But to the point of the apparent "outrage" over the Hagen ad, and I LIVE in North Carolina, it is no different from Barack Obama being "associated" with Planned Parenthood and THEIR desire for unrestricted abortion. That group of supporters for Hagen wants anything remotely "connected" to God OUT of everything, especially anything that concerns THEIR view of what is "public," whether it is school, government, or anything.

Hagen goes to them, accepts their money, KNOWING full well that what they STAND FOR is decidely anti-Christian and anti-God, period. For "political expediency" she is willing to take their money and their support. Why? Why would they even support her? What might they think is "in it" for them?

Hagen is an Episcopalean by choice. This is neither the time nor the place to "debate" some of those "Christian" beliefs, but it IS relevant to ask WHY a "NO GOD" group would want to through their support to someone who claims to hold "Christian" beliefs that are completely opposite of their avowed stance.

Furthermore, just how often has the liberal "pot" tried to "tar and feather" anyone who "DARED" to go to some places, such as Bob Jones University (which surprisingly DOES also support "Christian" ideals and beliefs)?

Beyond that, Hagen HAS a record, unlike most of Barack Obama's "smoke and mirrors" of virtually undefined "change." HER record is more big governement, more taxation, increased (literally doubled) the State spending and increasing the State debt. The "change" she wants is MORE big government, more taxation, more spending, more of "you don't know enough yourself to decide what to do with your money so give it to us and WE will decide what to do with it, even if you "fundamentally" disagree with "our choices," such as funding Planned Parenthood and their INDUSTRY of making money from killing babies and their support for induced labor and letting the "born" baby DIE (otherwise known as Infanticide).

North Carolina, along with several other "tobacco producing States," has been the "recipient" of this warped liberal thinking for years, and it has hurt MILLIONS of North Carolinians.

How you might ask?

Tobacco is the really BAD boogey man. Therefore we are going to make the "evil" tobacco companies PAY exhorbitant taxes to BOTH the government and to the "blessed lawyers." Nevermind that it will COST thousands of people their jobs.

And by the way, did I forget to mention that they want to keep using Tobacco as a source of funding for their major pet projects? Tobacco tax is VITAL to MANY of the liberal programs, both State and Federal.

IF tobacco IS such a huge "evil," (and doesn't the decision to smoke or not to smoke reside with the Individual's "right to choose" for themselves?), WHY doesn't the government simply declare it ILLEGAL and remove ALL tobacco, shut down the "evil" companies and do away with all the farming, processing, producing, and selling. If it is THAT harmful and bad, WHY support it JUST to get the TAX money?

Oh ya, let's not forget the "mantra" of the anti-smoking liberal crowd....the "second-hand smoke" risks to others is WHY we are banning smoking from all government buildings, are getting laws passed to ban smoking from "public access" buildings like business and bars. And we are trying our darnedest to get smoking banned from YOUR cars and homes too. All because of some unproven "fear" of second-hand smoke health problems for other people.

But, "second-hand" problems for babies as a result of choices to engage in sex? Naaaa....THAT's not a "second-hand choice" that "potentially causes harm to another human being." Forget the "harm," it KILLS the innocent person who is the "victim" of your choices, albeit "secondarily."

Hagan is what Hagan is. She is a "died in the wool" liberal who will say, and had proven she will DO, anything to get elected so she can impose MORE governmental control over the people. She is dedicated to the proposition that "all people are NOT created equal, endowed by their Creator with unalienable RIGHTS, among which are life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness." There is NO "guarantee" FOR happiness, just the right to pursue its attainment in a free society. But LIFE is a guarantee that the liberals are dedicated to taking away, and keeping away, from all the "non-voting block" of babies.

"Outraged" over the ad? Give me a break!

And since you seem to also believe in flying pigs, perhaps it would be a good time to remind folks that you can dress up a pig, put lipstick on it, and it's STILL a Pig. Very appropriate when you think of all the PORK spending the liberals always support (like the attempted giving of MILLIONS of dollars to ACORN).


Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 116
N
Member
OP Offline
Member
N
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 116

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 614
W
Member
Offline
Member
W
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 614
Kay Hagan also released a rebuttal ad to refute the filth that Dole is using.

Kay Hagan's Belief Ad

If the intent is to bring up Kay Hagan's campaign contributions that is fine, but to use a political ad to insinuate your opponent is "godless" is deplorable. Hopefully, the citizens of North Carolina will vote Elizabeth Dole right out of office for stooping so low because that is exactly what she deserves.

Want2Stay







Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,345
Originally Posted by ForeverHers
Hagan is what Hagan is. She is a "died in the wool" liberal who will say, and had proven she will DO, anything to get elected so she can impose MORE governmental control over the people.

FH, you are wasting a lot of bandwidth telling me why you don't like Hagan. Peace. I never said you need to like her, or that I like her (I am nowhere near NC).

What you seem to be missing is that the controversy is not about whether or not Hagan should win. It's about the false portrayal of her by Dole. I understand Hagan's outrage at being called "Godless" by Dole, just as would understand McCain's outrage at being called a drunkard for being married to a beer magnate. "Associations are important", right? stickout.

AGG


Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Search
Who's Online Now
1 members (NewEveryDay), 1,357 guests, and 77 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Mike69, petercgeelan, Zorya, Reyna98, Nofoguy
71,829 Registered Users
Building Marriages That Last A Lifetime
Copyright © 1995-2019, Marriage Builders®. All Rights Reserved.
Site Navigation
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5