Ben Quayle for Congress question

[observer53]

Originally Posted by Ritchie_az

I agree with this. He should have been up front. But he still denies having done many of the things (sexual things, specifically) that Nik Richie has accused him of.
I mean, we all make mistakes in our lives regarding who we become friends with (who here has never had a "questionable" friend? Or a friend who turned out to be a different person than you thought he or she was?).
Unless some proof comes out, then this really should be a non-issue, other than perhaps that Quayle wasn't completely up front to begin with (like this and the "family photo").

True. But I judge people's credibility every day. Once you start down that road of deception, everything else, particularly on the same subject, gets called into some question. It would have been a non-issue with a lot more people if he'd been up front about it. And, the "family photo" to demonstrate what turn out to be "fake family" values just adds to the problem. Had there been a few less candidates in this primary to spread that paltry percentage of votes around, we might not be having this discussion.

[azriverfan.]

Originally Posted by Ritchie_az

And taking a scumbad and liar at his word makes you "smart", "sane" and "honest"?

I'd much rather know all of the facts before declaring something "truth" than take a known liar at his word. I guess if that is "delusional" then I'm guilty.
Like I said, I'm not defending Quayle. I just don't get why people take what Nik Richie said as gospel. Is the hate for the Quayle name (and perhaps those with an "R" in front of their name) that large, that the reputation of the accuser doesn't matter?

Ritchie

You are a smart guy and I have a lot of respect for you. I agree with 90% of your posts in general, but you have to stop with this line of defense. Quayle contradicted himself. That is all the proof you need that he lied. He first said he had no involvement with that site only to later admit that he did. That is a lie. You don't need to take Richie's word as gospel since the person being accused of lying contradicted his earlier account himself. What more do you want???

Let's use a simple example. Bob says he never worked for Microsoft. Dave,a criminal with a history of lying, claims Bob worked for Microsoft. The next day Bob tells people he worked for Microsoft. Bob lied. Dave's criminal status has nothing to do with the fact that Bob contradicted his first statement. But the way you are arguing, you keep getting hung up on the fact that Dave is a criminal even though Bob came forth and contradicted his first statement.

I never said all of Nik Richie's statements are true. I just said that Quayle lied and he did lie about having no involvement with the site. Do you still disagree with that?

[Ritchie_az]

Quayle contradicted himself. That is all the proof you need that he lied. He first said he had no involvement with that site only to later admit that he did. That is a lie.

Let's use a simple example. Bob says he never worked for Microsoft. Dave,a criminal with a history of lying, claims Bob worked for Microsoft. The next day Bob tells people he worked for Microsoft. Bob lied.

Your example is flawed. It's more like this: Bob says he never worked for Microsoft. Dave, a criminal with a history of lying, claims Bob worked for Microsoft and stole software. The next day Bob tells people he worked for Microsoft, but did not steal software. Bob lied about working for Microsoft, but not necessarily about stealing.
That's my point.
Like I said, I'm not defending Quayle, who obviously has some "issues", and seems like a typical politician. I wouldn't have voted for him if he was in my district. However, I will call out nonsense when I see it.

I just said that Quayle lied and he did lie about having no involvement with the site. Do you still disagree with that?

I agree that Quayle lied about having a connection to Nik Richie and, to some extent, the Dirty Scottsdale site. However, there is no proof or evidence that Quayle did or was involved with any of the other things he was accused of, and someone has refuted those claims made by Nik Richie.

[azriverfan.]

Originally Posted by Ritchie_az

Your example is flawed. It's more like this: Bob says he never worked for Microsoft. Dave, a criminal with a history of lying, claims Bob worked for Microsoft and stole software. The next day Bob tells people he worked for Microsoft, but did not steal software. Bob lied about working for Microsoft, but not necessarily about stealing.
That's my point.
Like I said, I'm not defending Quayle, who obviously has some "issues", and seems like a typical politician. I wouldn't have voted for him if he was in my district. However, I will call out nonsense when I see it.

Yes, but you agree Bob lied about not working for Microsoft. That's the point; he lied! Likewise, Quayle lied about not ever having been associated with that website. Yet when we keep bringing that up, you don't seem to acknowledge that Quayle lied about that.

[Ritchie_az]

I never denied that Nik Ritchie may have lied and exaggerated details regarding the level of involvement that Quayle had with that site. However, that doesn't change the fact that Quayle lied about having any involvement with the site.

I went back a few pages. You said:

Furthermore, the guy gave specifics regarding Quayle's involvement. He didn't just provide a generalized statement like "Yeah he worked here" He stated the specific name he wrote under "Brock Landers" and he even named the law firm that he helped put him in contact with to get started. So give me a break. It's clear Quayle was lying and even you know that.
I also know enough people in Scottsdale that know the owners of that site not to mention the 944 Magazine and they all claim that Quayle was Brock Landers. I have no idea why you feel compelled to defend this guy.

And I agree that guy is a scumbag and threw his friend Ben under the bus to promote his website. However, that doesn't mean he was lying. And I don't think he was lying when all the evidence presented itself namely
1. Ben Quayle himself lied so his credibility on this issue is already in question. He initially claimed he had no involvement only to later refute that and claim he did. So he lied
2. The site owner provided specifics like the name Quayle wrote under and the law firm that Quayle put their organization in contact with. It's hard to imagine the site owner just conjured that up out of thin air. Usually when people lie, they provide vague comments that can't be traced or verified. He provided specifics

I guess we all stretch the truth from time-to-time. It doesn't make it right, but, "he who has no sin cast the first stone."

[jimj]

Originally Posted by azriverfan.

Gotta love this state. You can be unqualified, lie and embarrass yourself publicly and still win

Working/worked for Obama and others (like Charlie R.) so why wouldn't it continue to work for the rest?

[Oliver76]

Who is "we" and who is "them?"

I could care less if Ben was elected president in 2012 or Sarah Palin or GB for that matter, what I find disturbing is the two set of rules. There shouldn't be any selective justice when holding elected officials accountable for their misdeeds.

This dangerous path of us against them is what's fueling the misguided anger of the masses who march yet are as ignorant as they come. This weekend. 48 years lapsed since the march on Washington, back then the crowd was mixed, Americans from all walks of life banded together to a more tolerant fabric of our society. The difference about the march and counter march yesterday is clear, a more divided country, the two marches were composed of races not ideas. It is this us against them rhetoric that's not helping bring about a lasting solution to the problems we face in this country.

[azriverfan.]

Originally Posted by jimj

Working/worked for Obama and others (like Charlie R.) so why wouldn't it continue to work for the rest?

someone already beat you to making that point and it was already addressed earlier in this thread. I'm not going to rehash everything because you didn't read the thread.

[Rick Lee]

Jenna's website sucks and makes no mention whatsoever of how he differs from Quayle on the issues. I don't know much about either of them, but I would think a primary challenger would have more to distinguish himself from the incumbent and Jenna's site doesn't do that in the least. He could get my vote, but I'd need convincing as to what Quayle has done wrong, other than have a father people don't like, and how Jenna would be better.