I wonder if anything out of their mouth has any semblance of truth any longer. McCain is now running ads that are deceptive, or complete fabrications. He claims that Obama is spreading false rumors about Palin, and references Factcheck as the source, even though Factcheck actually says that McCain distorts their findings (//%22http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccain-palin_distorts_our_finding.html%22). McCain went on the View and claimed that Palin never requested earmarks as governors. Of course that isn't true (//%22http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccain-palin_distorts_our_finding.html%22). Even the ArmyTimes (//%22http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/defense_mccain_FCS_091208/%22) is questioning McCain veracity.
McCain introduced Palin as the gun-toting maverick that stopped the bridge to nowhere. Not true. He said she stopped wasteful spending and fought against earmarks. Again, not quite accurate. When questioned whether Palin had traveled overseas, her spokesperson said that she had traveled to Ireland, Iraq, Kuwait, and Germany. Later, it was revealed that she only refueled in Ireland (//%22http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/09/13/palin_camp_clarifies_extent_of_iraq_trip/%22). Not what I would call an in depth tour of the country. Now we learn that she didn't actually go to Iraq (//%22http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/09/13/palin_camp_clarifies_extent_of_iraq_trip/%22), but only went to the border crossing between Kuwait & Iraq.
Then there are the exaggerations that are so extreme that they are ridiculous. For starters, McCain & Palin have been making up the number of people (//%22http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a1J0tfV3XJYs&refer=politics%22) attending their rallies. McCain says that Plain knows more about energy (//%22http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fRjtAK66as%22) than anyone else in the country. Wow. Move over T. Boone, and all you people with, you know, degrees in petroleum engineering, geophysics, or even some sort of science background. And who knew that Alaska produced 20% of the country's energy? Apparently, no one besides Ms. Palin because it just isn't true (//%22http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/energetically_wrong.html%22). But don't worry because she has foreign policy experience since she can see Russia from Alaska. I can see the moon from my window and therefore I am an astronaut.
McCain must really being getting desperate to completely abandon any sense of integrity, and to start making stuff up in order to win. Obviously, he knows he can't win on the issues.
Palin/McCain? Thanks, but no thanks.
Nice post.
McCain has taken his honorable service to America and sullied it with a dis-honorable campaign.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
I wonder if anything out of their mouth has any semblance of truth any longer. McCain is now running ads that are deceptive, or complete fabrications. He claims that Obama is spreading false rumors about Palin, and references Factcheck as the source, even though Factcheck actually says that McCain distorts their findings (//%22http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccain-palin_distorts_our_finding.html%22). McCain went on the View and claimed that Palin never requested earmarks as governors. Of course that isn't true (//%22http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccain-palin_distorts_our_finding.html%22). Even the ArmyTimes (//%22http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/defense_mccain_FCS_091208/%22) is questioning McCain veracity.
McCain introduced Palin as the gun-toting maverick that stopped the bridge to nowhere. Not true. He said she stopped wasteful spending and fought against earmarks. Again, not quite accurate. When questioned whether Palin had traveled overseas, her spokesperson said that she had traveled to Ireland, Iraq, Kuwait, and Germany. Later, it was revealed that she only refueled in Ireland (//%22http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/09/13/palin_camp_clarifies_extent_of_iraq_trip/%22). Not what I would call an in depth tour of the country. Now we learn that she didn't actually go to Iraq (//%22http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/09/13/palin_camp_clarifies_extent_of_iraq_trip/%22), but only went to the border crossing between Kuwait & Iraq.
Then there are the exaggerations that are so extreme that they are ridiculous. For starters, McCain & Palin have been making up the number of people (//%22http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a1J0tfV3XJYs&refer=politics%22) attending their rallies. McCain says that Plain knows more about energy (//%22http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fRjtAK66as%22) than anyone else in the country. Wow. Move over T. Boone, and all you people with, you know, degrees in petroleum engineering, geophysics, or even some sort of science background. And who knew that Alaska produced 20% of the country's energy? Apparently, no one besides Ms. Palin because it just isn't true (//%22http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/energetically_wrong.html%22). But don't worry because she has foreign policy experience since she can see Russia from Alaska. I can see the moon from my window and therefore I am an astronaut.
McCain must really being getting desperate to completely abandon any sense of integrity, and to start making stuff up in order to win. Obviously, he knows he can't win on the issues.
Palin/McCain? Thanks, but no thanks.
Oh my GOD! Stop the presses...a political candidate is running ads that may "distort" the truth!!!
Did you notice the WHOPPER your candidate is telling in a recent set of ads where he says that he's going to cut taxes for 95% of US? Explain to me how this is possible seeing as how only 60% of the population actually ever pays taxes? How do you CUT taxes for people that DONT pay them to begin with? It's called the "robin hood complex."
Tip of the iceberg...
I don't think you really want to get into the truth stretching, fabrications, and flat out lies from your candidate over the last few years. I could post until Christmas and still not run out of material...
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
I wonder if anything out of their mouth has any semblance of truth any longer. McCain is now running ads that are deceptive, or complete fabrications. He claims that Obama is spreading false rumors about Palin, and references Factcheck as the source, even though Factcheck actually says that McCain distorts their findings (//%22http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccain-palin_distorts_our_finding.html%22). McCain went on the View and claimed that Palin never requested earmarks as governors. Of course that isn't true (//%22http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccain-palin_distorts_our_finding.html%22). Even the ArmyTimes (//%22http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/defense_mccain_FCS_091208/%22) is questioning McCain veracity.
McCain introduced Palin as the gun-toting maverick that stopped the bridge to nowhere. Not true. He said she stopped wasteful spending and fought against earmarks. Again, not quite accurate. When questioned whether Palin had traveled overseas, her spokesperson said that she had traveled to Ireland, Iraq, Kuwait, and Germany. Later, it was revealed that she only refueled in Ireland (//%22http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/09/13/palin_camp_clarifies_extent_of_iraq_trip/%22). Not what I would call an in depth tour of the country. Now we learn that she didn't actually go to Iraq (//%22http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/09/13/palin_camp_clarifies_extent_of_iraq_trip/%22), but only went to the border crossing between Kuwait & Iraq.
Then there are the exaggerations that are so extreme that they are ridiculous. For starters, McCain & Palin have been making up the number of people (//%22http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a1J0tfV3XJYs&refer=politics%22) attending their rallies. McCain says that Plain knows more about energy (//%22http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fRjtAK66as%22) than anyone else in the country. Wow. Move over T. Boone, and all you people with, you know, degrees in petroleum engineering, geophysics, or even some sort of science background. And who knew that Alaska produced 20% of the country's energy? Apparently, no one besides Ms. Palin because it just isn't true (//%22http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/energetically_wrong.html%22). But don't worry because she has foreign policy experience since she can see Russia from Alaska. I can see the moon from my window and therefore I am an astronaut.
McCain must really being getting desperate to completely abandon any sense of integrity, and to start making stuff up in order to win. Obviously, he knows he can't win on the issues.
Palin/McCain? Thanks, but no thanks.
Oh my GOD! Stop the presses...a political candidate is running ads that may "distort" the truth!!!
Did you notice the WHOPPER your candidate is telling in a recent set of ads where he says that he's going to cut taxes for 95% of US? Explain to me how this is possible seeing as how only 60% of the population actually ever pays taxes? How do you CUT taxes for people that DONT pay them to begin with? It's called the "robin hood complex."
Tip of the iceberg...
I don't think you really want to get into the truth stretching, fabrications, and flat out lies from your candidate over the last few years. I could post until Christmas and still not run out of material...
Answer:
The top 5% of Americans that pay 40% of the Federal Income Taxes will get their asses taxed off by President Barack Hussein Obama.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
I wonder if anything out of their mouth has any semblance of truth any longer. McCain is now running ads that are deceptive, or complete fabrications. He claims that Obama is spreading false rumors about Palin, and references Factcheck as the source, even though Factcheck actually says that McCain distorts their findings (//%22http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccain-palin_distorts_our_finding.html%22). McCain went on the View and claimed that Palin never requested earmarks as governors. Of course that isn't true (//%22http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccain-palin_distorts_our_finding.html%22). Even the ArmyTimes (//%22http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/defense_mccain_FCS_091208/%22) is questioning McCain veracity.
McCain introduced Palin as the gun-toting maverick that stopped the bridge to nowhere. Not true. He said she stopped wasteful spending and fought against earmarks. Again, not quite accurate. When questioned whether Palin had traveled overseas, her spokesperson said that she had traveled to Ireland, Iraq, Kuwait, and Germany. Later, it was revealed that she only refueled in Ireland (//%22http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/09/13/palin_camp_clarifies_extent_of_iraq_trip/%22). Not what I would call an in depth tour of the country. Now we learn that she didn't actually go to Iraq (//%22http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/09/13/palin_camp_clarifies_extent_of_iraq_trip/%22), but only went to the border crossing between Kuwait & Iraq.
Then there are the exaggerations that are so extreme that they are ridiculous. For starters, McCain & Palin have been making up the number of people (//%22http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a1J0tfV3XJYs&refer=politics%22) attending their rallies. McCain says that Plain knows more about energy (//%22http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fRjtAK66as%22) than anyone else in the country. Wow. Move over T. Boone, and all you people with, you know, degrees in petroleum engineering, geophysics, or even some sort of science background. And who knew that Alaska produced 20% of the country's energy? Apparently, no one besides Ms. Palin because it just isn't true (//%22http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/energetically_wrong.html%22). But don't worry because she has foreign policy experience since she can see Russia from Alaska. I can see the moon from my window and therefore I am an astronaut.
McCain must really being getting desperate to completely abandon any sense of integrity, and to start making stuff up in order to win. Obviously, he knows he can't win on the issues.
Palin/McCain? Thanks, but no thanks.
Oh my GOD! Stop the presses...a political candidate is running ads that may "distort" the truth!!!
Did you notice the WHOPPER your candidate is telling in a recent set of ads where he says that he's going to cut taxes for 95% of US? Explain to me how this is possible seeing as how only 60% of the population actually ever pays taxes? How do you CUT taxes for people that DONT pay them to begin with? It's called the "robin hood complex."
Tip of the iceberg...
I don't think you really want to get into the truth stretching, fabrications, and flat out lies from your candidate over the last few years. I could post until Christmas and still not run out of material...
Answer:
The top 5% of Americans that pay 40% of the Federal Income Taxes will get their asses taxed off by President Barack Hussein Obama.
Not to mentioin what he will do to Sub S Corp/small bizz......
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
I wonder if anything out of their mouth has any semblance of truth any longer. McCain is now running ads that are deceptive, or complete fabrications. He claims that Obama is spreading false rumors about Palin, and references Factcheck as the source, even though Factcheck actually says that McCain distorts their findings (//%22http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccain-palin_distorts_our_finding.html%22). McCain went on the View and claimed that Palin never requested earmarks as governors. Of course that isn't true (//%22http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccain-palin_distorts_our_finding.html%22). Even the ArmyTimes (//%22http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/defense_mccain_FCS_091208/%22) is questioning McCain veracity.
McCain introduced Palin as the gun-toting maverick that stopped the bridge to nowhere. Not true. He said she stopped wasteful spending and fought against earmarks. Again, not quite accurate. When questioned whether Palin had traveled overseas, her spokesperson said that she had traveled to Ireland, Iraq, Kuwait, and Germany. Later, it was revealed that she only refueled in Ireland (//%22http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/09/13/palin_camp_clarifies_extent_of_iraq_trip/%22). Not what I would call an in depth tour of the country. Now we learn that she didn't actually go to Iraq (//%22http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/09/13/palin_camp_clarifies_extent_of_iraq_trip/%22), but only went to the border crossing between Kuwait & Iraq.
Then there are the exaggerations that are so extreme that they are ridiculous. For starters, McCain & Palin have been making up the number of people (//%22http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a1J0tfV3XJYs&refer=politics%22) attending their rallies. McCain says that Plain knows more about energy (//%22http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fRjtAK66as%22) than anyone else in the country. Wow. Move over T. Boone, and all you people with, you know, degrees in petroleum engineering, geophysics, or even some sort of science background. And who knew that Alaska produced 20% of the country's energy? Apparently, no one besides Ms. Palin because it just isn't true (//%22http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/energetically_wrong.html%22). But don't worry because she has foreign policy experience since she can see Russia from Alaska. I can see the moon from my window and therefore I am an astronaut.
McCain must really being getting desperate to completely abandon any sense of integrity, and to start making stuff up in order to win. Obviously, he knows he can't win on the issues.
Palin/McCain? Thanks, but no thanks.
Oh my GOD! Stop the presses...a political candidate is running ads that may "distort" the truth!!!
Did you notice the WHOPPER your candidate is telling in a recent set of ads where he says that he's going to cut taxes for 95% of US? Explain to me how this is possible seeing as how only 60% of the population actually ever pays taxes? How do you CUT taxes for people that DONT pay them to begin with? It's called the "robin hood complex."
Tip of the iceberg...
I don't think you really want to get into the truth stretching, fabrications, and flat out lies from your candidate over the last few years. I could post until Christmas and still not run out of material...
Answer:
The top 5% of Americans that pay 40% of the Federal Income Taxes will get their asses taxed off by President Barack Hussein Obama.
Not to mentioin what he will do to Sub S Corp/small bizz......
Should be an interesting first day in office for Obama, after the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff resigns in protest to having to serve under a confirmed hard-care Marxist Leninist at the top of the National Command Authority.
Hope the Russkis are too complacent to attack in the subsequent confusion.........
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
I wonder if anything out of their mouth has any semblance of truth any longer. McCain is now running ads that are deceptive, or complete fabrications. He claims that Obama is spreading false rumors about Palin, and references Factcheck as the source, even though Factcheck actually says that McCain distorts their findings (//%22http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccain-palin_distorts_our_finding.html%22). McCain went on the View and claimed that Palin never requested earmarks as governors. Of course that isn't true (//%22http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccain-palin_distorts_our_finding.html%22). Even the ArmyTimes (//%22http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/defense_mccain_FCS_091208/%22) is questioning McCain veracity.
McCain introduced Palin as the gun-toting maverick that stopped the bridge to nowhere. Not true. He said she stopped wasteful spending and fought against earmarks. Again, not quite accurate. When questioned whether Palin had traveled overseas, her spokesperson said that she had traveled to Ireland, Iraq, Kuwait, and Germany. Later, it was revealed that she only refueled in Ireland (//%22http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/09/13/palin_camp_clarifies_extent_of_iraq_trip/%22). Not what I would call an in depth tour of the country. Now we learn that she didn't actually go to Iraq (//%22http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/09/13/palin_camp_clarifies_extent_of_iraq_trip/%22), but only went to the border crossing between Kuwait & Iraq.
Then there are the exaggerations that are so extreme that they are ridiculous. For starters, McCain & Palin have been making up the number of people (//%22http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a1J0tfV3XJYs&refer=politics%22) attending their rallies. McCain says that Plain knows more about energy (//%22http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fRjtAK66as%22) than anyone else in the country. Wow. Move over T. Boone, and all you people with, you know, degrees in petroleum engineering, geophysics, or even some sort of science background. And who knew that Alaska produced 20% of the country's energy? Apparently, no one besides Ms. Palin because it just isn't true (//%22http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/energetically_wrong.html%22). But don't worry because she has foreign policy experience since she can see Russia from Alaska. I can see the moon from my window and therefore I am an astronaut.
McCain must really being getting desperate to completely abandon any sense of integrity, and to start making stuff up in order to win. Obviously, he knows he can't win on the issues.
Palin/McCain? Thanks, but no thanks.
Oh my GOD! Stop the presses...a political candidate is running ads that may "distort" the truth!!!
Did you notice the WHOPPER your candidate is telling in a recent set of ads where he says that he's going to cut taxes for 95% of US? Explain to me how this is possible seeing as how only 60% of the population actually ever pays taxes? How do you CUT taxes for people that DONT pay them to begin with? It's called the "robin hood complex."
Tip of the iceberg...
I don't think you really want to get into the truth stretching, fabrications, and flat out lies from your candidate over the last few years. I could post until Christmas and still not run out of material...
Answer:
The top 5% of Americans that pay 40% of the Federal Income Taxes will get their asses taxed off by President Barack Hussein Obama.
Not to mentioin what he will do to Sub S Corp/small bizz......
Should be an interesting first day in office for Obama, after the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff resigns in protest to having to serve under a confirmed hard-care Marxist Leninist at the top of the National Command Authority.
Hope the Russkis are too complacent to attack in the subsequent confusion.........
Can't debate issues so resorts to name-calling. Seems awful childish.
But not surprising.
[:O]
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Oh my GOD! Stop the presses...a political candidate is running ads that may "distort" the truth!!!
Did you notice the WHOPPER your candidate is telling in a recent set of ads where he says that he's going to cut taxes for 95% of US? Explain to me how this is possible seeing as how only 60% of the population actually ever pays taxes? How do you CUT taxes for people that DONT pay them to begin with? It's called the "robin hood complex."
Tip of the iceberg...
I don't think you really want to get into the truth stretching, fabrications, and flat out lies from your candidate over the last few years. I could post until Christmas and still not run out of material...
Obama has said he would provide tax cuts to 95% of the working poor (i.e., those who earn a wage). You do realize that everyone who works pays taxes in the form of FICA and medicare, right? Maybe you don't know too much about the working class poor, but there is a little thing called the Earned Income tax credit. It is an incentive to encourage those who earn low wages to seek out work. It is designed to offset the cost of FICA & medicare taxes, and is provided
even when you owe no federal income tax. President Bill Clinton worked hard to increase the EIC, resulting in a significant rise in the number of families lifted out of poverty.
You say that you could go on and on with examples of Obama fabricating, yet you provide not a single example. I have listed most of the lies (there have been more) that McCain has spread, all backed by non-partisan references, and none of which you dispute. Your candidate has nothing to offer the American people but more of the Bush legacy. So instead of running an honorable campaign, he is doing anything he can to win.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
Answer:
The top 5% of Americans that pay 40% of the Federal Income Taxes will get their asses taxed off by President Barack Hussein Obama.
Too bad the top 5% do not do 40% of the work....
So, when you talk about the "top 5%" getting "their asses taxed off" I assume you're talking about a return to the Bill Clinton tax code...
Yeah, the rich really got ripped off in the 90s.... "the biggest tax hike in American history".... I remember all that horrible unemployment for the wealthy in the 90s, and all the rich people going homeless and begging in the streets.... [}:)]
http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Barack_Obama_Tax_Reform.htm
Q: Is McCain going to go after you as another classic liberal tax and spender?
A: Well, I'm going to go right back at McCain, because look at his tax proposals. He not only wants to continue some of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and corporations, he actually wants to extend them, and he hasn't told us really how he's going to pay for them. It is irresponsible. And the irony is he said it was irresponsible. When George Bush initiated these tax cuts in 2001, McCain said, "This is shameful." He said that it offended his conscience, he said, for us to give tax breaks to the wealthy, particularly at a time of war. If you look at my approach to taxation, what have I said? I said I would cut taxes for people making $75,000 a year or less. I'd cut taxes for seniors who are making $50,000 a year or less. It is true that I would roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans back to the level they were under Bill Clinton, when I don't remember rich people feeling oppressed.
------------------------------------------------
Q: Can you make an absolute, read-my-lips pledge that there will be no tax increases of any kind for anyone earning under $200,000 a year?
CLINTON: I will let the taxes on people making more than $250,000 a year go back to the rates that they were paying in the 1990s.
Q: Senator Obama, would you take the same pledge? No tax increases on people under $250,000?
OBAMA: I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes, I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes. We are going to offset the payroll tax, the most regressive of our taxes, so that families who are middle-income individuals making $75,000 a year or less, that they would get a tax break so that families would see up to $1,000 worth of relief.
Q: You both have now just taken this pledge on people under $250,000 and $200,000.
OBAMA: Well, it depends on how you calculate it. But it would be between $200,000 and $250,000.
------------------------------------------------
Q: If either one of you become president, and let the Bush tax cuts lapse, there will be effectively tax increases on millions of Americans.
OBAMA: On wealthy Americans.
CLINTON: That's right.
OBAMA: I'm not bashful about it.
CLINTON: Absolutely
OBAMA: I suspect a lot of this crowd--it looks like a pretty well-dressed crowd--potentially will pay a little bit more. I will pay a little bit more. But that investment will pay huge dividends over the long term, and the place where it will pay the biggest dividends is in Medicare and Medicaid. Because if we can get a healthier population, that is the only way over the long term that we can actually control that spending that is going to break the federal budget.
CLINTON: It's just really important to underscore here that we will go back to the tax rates we had before George Bush became president. And my memory is, people did really well during that time period. And they will keep doing really well.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Oh my GOD! Stop the presses...a political candidate is running ads that may "distort" the truth!!!
Did you notice the WHOPPER your candidate is telling in a recent set of ads where he says that he's going to cut taxes for 95% of US? Explain to me how this is possible seeing as how only 60% of the population actually ever pays taxes? How do you CUT taxes for people that DONT pay them to begin with? It's called the "robin hood complex."
Tip of the iceberg...
I don't think you really want to get into the truth stretching, fabrications, and flat out lies from your candidate over the last few years. I could post until Christmas and still not run out of material...
Obama has said he would provide tax cuts to 95% of the working poor (i.e., those who earn a wage). You do realize that everyone who works pays taxes in the form of FICA and medicare, right? Maybe you don't know too much about the working class poor, but there is a little thing called the Earned Income tax credit. It is an incentive to encourage those who earn low wages to seek out work. It is designed to offset the cost of FICA & medicare taxes, and is provided even when you owe no federal income tax. President Bill Clinton worked hard to increase the EIC, resulting in a significant rise in the number of families lifted out of poverty.
You say that you could go on and on with examples of Obama fabricating, yet you provide not a single example. I have listed most of the lies (there have been more) that McCain has spread, all backed by non-partisan references, and none of which you dispute. Your candidate has nothing to offer the American people but more of the Bush legacy. So instead of running an honorable campaign, he is doing anything he can to win.
As a Community Organizer for the Cook County Democrat Machine, Obama's south Chicago core constituents were 3rd Generation Welfare Moms living in Public Housing, collecting AFDC, Welfare, and Section 8 Housing Allowances.
They'd never worked a day in their lives.
Now, he wants to give them all a Tax Refund for never having paid any taxes......
It's called the EITC....except, there NO earned income.
The U.S.A. cannot afford a Barach Hussein Obama.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Oh my GOD! Stop the presses...a political candidate is running ads that may "distort" the truth!!!
Did you notice the WHOPPER your candidate is telling in a recent set of ads where he says that he's going to cut taxes for 95% of US? Explain to me how this is possible seeing as how only 60% of the population actually ever pays taxes? How do you CUT taxes for people that DONT pay them to begin with? It's called the "robin hood complex."
Tip of the iceberg...
I don't think you really want to get into the truth stretching, fabrications, and flat out lies from your candidate over the last few years. I could post until Christmas and still not run out of material...
Obama has said he would provide tax cuts to 95% of the working poor (i.e., those who earn a wage). You do realize that everyone who works pays taxes in the form of FICA and medicare, right? Maybe you don't know too much about the working class poor, but there is a little thing called the Earned Income tax credit. It is an incentive to encourage those who earn low wages to seek out work. It is designed to offset the cost of FICA & medicare taxes, and is provided even when you owe no federal income tax. President Bill Clinton worked hard to increase the EIC, resulting in a significant rise in the number of families lifted out of poverty.
You say that you could go on and on with examples of Obama fabricating, yet you provide not a single example. I have listed most of the lies (there have been more) that McCain has spread, all backed by non-partisan references, and none of which you dispute. Your candidate has nothing to offer the American people but more of the Bush legacy. So instead of running an honorable campaign, he is doing anything he can to win.
As a Community Organizer for the Cook County Democrat Machine, Obama's south Chicago core constituents were 3rd Generation Welfare Moms living in Public Housing, collecting AFDC, Welfare, and Section 8 Housing Allowances.
They'd never worked a day in their lives.
Now, he wants to give them all a Tax Refund for never having paid any taxes......
It's called the EITC....except, there NO earned income.
The U.S.A. cannot afford a Barach Hussein Obama.
You can't get a credit if you don't earn income. Period. Clearly, you have no clue what you are talking about. Go back to hibernating, please.
No.
The USA cannot afford to simply sit idly by while the Bush tax cuts enforced by a new McCain administration ensure that a new guilded age of Oligarchy percolates...
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3292/2825665174_ec686c978a_o.jpg)
Do you honestly think for two seconds that we have too few trust fund babies? How many jobs do they create?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/forbes-hails-the-richest-year-in-human-history-439462.html
Forbes hails 'the richest year in human history'
By Stephen Foley in New York
Friday, 9 March 2007
The number of people entitled to call themselves billionaires has skyrocketed over the past year, concentrating a staggering $3.5 trillion (£1.8trillion) of wealth into the hands of 946 men and (occasionally) women.
According to Forbes magazine, for years the official arbiter of the fortunes of the super-rich, a heady cocktail of global economic growth and soaring asset prices has created 178 new billionaires in just 12 months.
"This is the richest year in human history," declared the magazine's founder, Steve Forbes. "The best way to create wealth is to have free markets and free people, and more and more of the world is realising it."
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Oh my GOD! Stop the presses...a political candidate is running ads that may "distort" the truth!!!
Did you notice the WHOPPER your candidate is telling in a recent set of ads where he says that he's going to cut taxes for 95% of US? Explain to me how this is possible seeing as how only 60% of the population actually ever pays taxes? How do you CUT taxes for people that DONT pay them to begin with? It's called the "robin hood complex."
Tip of the iceberg...
I don't think you really want to get into the truth stretching, fabrications, and flat out lies from your candidate over the last few years. I could post until Christmas and still not run out of material...
Obama has said he would provide tax cuts to 95% of the working poor (i.e., those who earn a wage). You do realize that everyone who works pays taxes in the form of FICA and medicare, right? Maybe you don't know too much about the working class poor, but there is a little thing called the Earned Income tax credit. It is an incentive to encourage those who earn low wages to seek out work. It is designed to offset the cost of FICA & medicare taxes, and is provided even when you owe no federal income tax. President Bill Clinton worked hard to increase the EIC, resulting in a significant rise in the number of families lifted out of poverty.
You say that you could go on and on with examples of Obama fabricating, yet you provide not a single example. I have listed most of the lies (there have been more) that McCain has spread, all backed by non-partisan references, and none of which you dispute. Your candidate has nothing to offer the American people but more of the Bush legacy. So instead of running an honorable campaign, he is doing anything he can to win.
As a Community Organizer for the Cook County Democrat Machine, Obama's south Chicago core constituents were 3rd Generation Welfare Moms living in Public Housing, collecting AFDC, Welfare, and Section 8 Housing Allowances.
They'd never worked a day in their lives.
Now, he wants to give them all a Tax Refund for never having paid any taxes......
It's called the EITC....except, there NO earned income.
The U.S.A. cannot afford a Barach Hussein Obama.
You can't get a credit if you don't earn income. Period. Clearly, you have no clue what you are talking about. Go back to hibernating, please.
Sure you can.
It's called a Transfer Payment.
Millions happen every year.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
Sure you can.
It's called a Transfer Payment.
Millions happen every year.
You do understand we are discussing the Earned Income Tax credit, right? Not welfare benefits, SSI, whatever. From the IRS:
quote:
This credit is called the "earned income" credit because, to qualify, you must work and have earned income. If you are married and file a joint return, you meet this rule if at least one spouse works and has earned income. If you are an employee, earned income includes all the taxable income you get from your employer.
I really have no idea what you are talking about. But then I guess I am not alone.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
As a Community Organizer for the Cook County Democrat Machine, Obama's south Chicago core constituents were 3rd Generation Welfare Moms living in Public Housing, collecting AFDC, Welfare, and Section 8 Housing Allowances.
A completely one-sided and one-dimensional generalization of Obama's
"south Chicago core consituents"... Obama lived in Hyde Park, a middle class oasis that knows the despair of the area first hand... Obama was an outsider... the last thing the middle class area of Hyde Park wants is to be surrounded by a culture of welfare dependence and crime...
But this IS Chicago politics, and it ain't called
"the Windy City" because of the weather...
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all
Obama knew that Hyde Park, despite its reputation as the center of anti-machine progressives, was not exempt from other Chicago political traditions. During the first half of 1995, when he was preparing for his campaign for the State Senate, a big story in the neighborhood was a race for alderman marked by accusations of dirty tricks (endorsement flyers from a phony group of gay African-Americans were distributed the day before the election, apparently in an effort to stoke homophobia) and anti-Semitism (the campaign of one of the candidates was accused of being run by "Jewish overseers").Heck FB... with all the homophobia and anti-Semitism, you might just feel right at home on the Southside... [8D]
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Obama has said he would provide tax cuts to 95% of the working poor (i.e., those who earn a wage). You do realize that everyone who works pays taxes in the form of FICA and medicare, right? Maybe you don't know too much about the working class poor, but there is a little thing called the Earned Income tax credit. It is an incentive to encourage those who earn low wages to seek out work. It is designed to offset the cost of FICA & medicare taxes, and is provided even when you owe no federal income tax. President Bill Clinton worked hard to increase the EIC, resulting in a significant rise in the number of families lifted out of poverty.
I don't know where you learned math, but when person X pays no taxes and receives $500 from the government in April and you increase that to $1000 it is NOT a tax cut. It's called income redistribution.
Just more smoke and mirrors. When you raise the marginal rate on small businesses from approximately 39% to 50% do you think employees get raises or bonuses? Do those businesses hire more or potentially let people go to make up the lost revenue. Pretty simple ideas here folks.
quote:
You say that you could go on and on with examples of Obama fabricating, yet you provide not a single example.
I though you'd never ask; here are a few:
* DC Handgun Ban
As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns. -- Obama's Statement (//%22http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2008-04-16-3484505932_x.htm%22)Do you support state legislation to:ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes. -- Politico (//%22http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_obamaquestionaire2.html%22)* Born Alive Vote
Obama voted against the "Born Alive Protection Act" because he said it would erode Roe v Wade, but he would have voted for the bill had it been like the federal bill. Well, surprise, he voted down a bill nearly IDENTICAL to the federal bill. He took a position farther to the left than NARAL.
He can't seem to give a straight answer. -- Town Hall (//%22http://townhall.com/Columnists/KathleenParker/2008/08/22/obamas_born-alive_problem%22)* Public Financing.
If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?
Yes -- Midwest Democracy (//%22http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/content/Questionnaire_Midwest_Democracy_Network_Obama_02192008.pdf%22)* More Fund Raising Fudge
"We have now raised 90 percent of our donations from small donors, $25, $50. We average -- our average donation is $109 so we have built the kind of organization that is funded by the American people that is exactly the goal and the aim of everybody who's interested in good government and politics supports."Ooops try 50%... but I'm sure he just "misspoke" again. -- Open Secrets (//%22http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.php?filter=A&sortby=4%22)* On being an endorsed candidate
"You will recall that for my entire political career here, I was not the the endorsed candidate of any political organization here" Please list all the endorsements you have so far:
4th, 5th, and 6th Democratic Organizations, Aldermen Preckwinkle and Steele, and the New Party --Politico (//%22http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_obamaquestionaire1newest.html%22) Shall I continue?
I just watched a Saturday Night Live video with Tina Fey playing Sarah Palin. The weird thing is that if I saw videos of Tina and Sarah side by side, I wouldn't be able to tell you which was the "real" candidate!
(Except I'd be happier if it were Tina Fey. She wouldn't be qualified either, but if McCain should croak, I wouldn't have to worry about having another George W in the White House...and I'd feel more comfortable with Fey's Supreme Court picks.)
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
I don't know where you learned math, but when person X pays no taxes and receives $500 from the government in April and you increase that to $1000 it is NOT a tax cut. It's called income redistribution.
I don't know where you learned about taxes, but if you look carefully at your paycheck stub each month (assuming you are employed), you'll notice several areas where the government takes out money--federal income tax, FICA, and Medicare--all of which are called "taxes." At the end of the year, when you have paid several thousands of dollars of taxes, and the government sends you some of that back, it's called a "tax cut." You said that Obama was lying about tax cuts. Whether you like his proposal or not is irrelevant; the fact is that he wasn't lying.
quote:
quote:
You say that you could go on and on with examples of Obama fabricating, yet you provide not a single example.
I though you'd never ask; here are a few:
* DC Handgun Ban
As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns. -- Obama's Statement (//%22http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2008-04-16-3484505932_x.htm%22)
Do you support state legislation to:ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes. -- Politico (//%22http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_obamaquestionaire2.html%22)
* Born Alive Vote
Obama voted against the "Born Alive Protection Act" because he said it would erode Roe v Wade, but he would have voted for the bill had it been like the federal bill. Well, surprise, he voted down a bill nearly IDENTICAL to the federal bill. He took a position farther to the left than NARAL.
He can't seem to give a straight answer. -- Town Hall (//%22http://townhall.com/Columnists/KathleenParker/2008/08/22/obamas_born-alive_problem%22)
* Public Financing.
If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?
Yes -- Midwest Democracy (//%22http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/content/Questionnaire_Midwest_Democracy_Network_Obama_02192008.pdf%22)
* More Fund Raising Fudge
"We have now raised 90 percent of our donations from small donors, $25, $50. We average -- our average donation is $109 so we have built the kind of organization that is funded by the American people that is exactly the goal and the aim of everybody who's interested in good government and politics supports."
Ooops try 50%... but I'm sure he just "misspoke" again. -- Open Secrets (//%22http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/donordems.php?filter=A&sortby=4%22)
* On being an endorsed candidate
"You will recall that for my entire political career here, I was not the the endorsed candidate of any political organization here"
Please list all the endorsements you have so far:
4th, 5th, and 6th Democratic Organizations, Aldermen Preckwinkle and Steele, and the New Party --Politico (//%22http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_obamaquestionaire1newest.html%22)
Shall I continue?
[/quote]
First, we are talking about lies, here, not "flip-flops." If you want to start a thread on that, I am sure I can come up with a few examples for McCain. I don't know where you learned the definition of lie, but it is making a statement that you know to be false. Changing positions on public finance is not a lie.
For the fund raising, please provide a source & date for your quote. Don't understand your "endorsed candidate" cite. As for your abortion cite, there is a big difference between right-wing editorial interpertations, and an outright lie.
I will admit that Obama did say he opposed an out right ban on guns, when in fact at one time a survey filled out in his name had a typewritten "Yes" in response to a question asking whether he supported a ban on guns. More of a "flip flop" in my opinion, but if McCain ran an ad exploiting that, I would say it is fair game.
I fully expect each candidate to exagerate their record, and wiggle on controversial positions. But when you repeatedly make statements of
fact that simply are not true--even run ads with them--you are no longer politically posturing. You are in fact lying.
Let's start with the first quote, we can deal with the others separately:
quote:
As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.
This statement is, in fact, a complete and total lie. In fact, it invovles TWO distinct lies in the same story.
He filled out a questionnaire in 1996 while running for state senate in Illinois where he was asked the following question:
quote:
Do you support state legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?
His answer was an unequivocal
YES.This is not simply switching positions, he lied about the fact that he never favored an all-out ban on handguns.
He followed this lie up by saying that he never filled out or "signed" the document. Later it was proven that he did, in fact, sign that document.
The links I provided in the previous post contain all the needed verification and simply link to the actual document sans spin.
Secondly, the born alive vote lie is very simple to understand.
Obama was quoted as saying that he would have supported the Born Alive protection act if it would have contained language similar to the federal bill. He repeated this assertion at Saddleback.
The Illinois bill was identical to the Federal bill, yet he refused to sign it into law. I will post both if you'd like to see them. They are very, very short bills.
So either he didn't read the bill, or he was lying about his intentions to sign that bill.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
I wonder if anything out of their mouth has any semblance of truth any longer. McCain is now running ads that are deceptive, or complete fabrications. He claims that Obama is spreading false rumors about Palin, and references Factcheck as the source, even though Factcheck actually says that McCain distorts their findings (//%22http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccain-palin_distorts_our_finding.html%22). McCain went on the View and claimed that Palin never requested earmarks as governors. Of course that isn't true (//%22http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccain-palin_distorts_our_finding.html%22). Even the ArmyTimes (//%22http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/defense_mccain_FCS_091208/%22) is questioning McCain veracity.
McCain introduced Palin as the gun-toting maverick that stopped the bridge to nowhere. Not true. He said she stopped wasteful spending and fought against earmarks. Again, not quite accurate. When questioned whether Palin had traveled overseas, her spokesperson said that she had traveled to Ireland, Iraq, Kuwait, and Germany. Later, it was revealed that she only refueled in Ireland (//%22http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/09/13/palin_camp_clarifies_extent_of_iraq_trip/%22). Not what I would call an in depth tour of the country. Now we learn that she didn't actually go to Iraq (//%22http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/09/13/palin_camp_clarifies_extent_of_iraq_trip/%22), but only went to the border crossing between Kuwait & Iraq.
Then there are the exaggerations that are so extreme that they are ridiculous. For starters, McCain & Palin have been making up the number of people (//%22http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a1J0tfV3XJYs&refer=politics%22) attending their rallies. McCain says that Plain knows more about energy (//%22http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fRjtAK66as%22) than anyone else in the country. Wow. Move over T. Boone, and all you people with, you know, degrees in petroleum engineering, geophysics, or even some sort of science background. And who knew that Alaska produced 20% of the country's energy? Apparently, no one besides Ms. Palin because it just isn't true (//%22http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/energetically_wrong.html%22). But don't worry because she has foreign policy experience since she can see Russia from Alaska. I can see the moon from my window and therefore I am an astronaut.
McCain must really being getting desperate to completely abandon any sense of integrity, and to start making stuff up in order to win. Obviously, he knows he can't win on the issues.
Palin/McCain? Thanks, but no thanks.
Oh my GOD! Stop the presses...a political candidate is running ads that may "distort" the truth!!!
Did you notice the WHOPPER your candidate is telling in a recent set of ads where he says that he's going to cut taxes for 95% of US? Explain to me how this is possible seeing as how only 60% of the population actually ever pays taxes? How do you CUT taxes for people that DONT pay them to begin with? It's called the "robin hood complex."
Tip of the iceberg...
I don't think you really want to get into the truth stretching, fabrications, and flat out lies from your candidate over the last few years. I could post until Christmas and still not run out of material...
Answer:
The top 5% of Americans that pay 40% of the Federal Income Taxes will get their asses taxed off by President Barack Hussein Obama.
Not to mentioin what he will do to Sub S Corp/small bizz......
Should be an interesting first day in office for Obama, after the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff resigns in protest to having to serve under a confirmed hard-care Marxist Leninist at the top of the National Command Authority.
Hope the Russkis are too complacent to attack in the subsequent confusion.........
On Obama's first day in office the Joint Chiefs will report to their New Commander in Chief and follow his instructions.
If anyone makes written or spoken threats against his life they will be guilty of a federal offense and be subject to prosecution for committing a crime. I will personally report any threats to Obama's life that I become aware of.
I heard Obama on the Presidential Forum last week and my goodness I am even more impressed than before. We have our Obama sign up in the yard and I am so proud to be able to cast my vote for him.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Secondly, the born alive vote lie is very simple to understand.
Obama was quoted as saying that he would have supported the Born Alive protection act if it would have contained language similar to the federal bill. He repeated this assertion at Saddleback.
The Illinois bill was identical to the Federal bill, yet he refused to sign it into law. I will post both if you'd like to see them. They are very, very short bills.
So either he didn't read the bill, or he was lying about his intentions to sign that bill.
Decide for yourselves:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html
Negativity is their weakness and they will project it onto Barack. Just remember, when Karl Rove pats you on the back, look for a knife....Karl Rove Says McCain Ads Go Too Far
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/09/14/karl-rove-says-mccain-went-too-far/
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Secondly, the born alive vote lie is very simple to understand.
Obama was quoted as saying that he would have supported the Born Alive protection act if it would have contained language similar to the federal bill. He repeated this assertion at Saddleback.
The Illinois bill was identical to the Federal bill, yet he refused to sign it into law. I will post both if you'd like to see them. They are very, very short bills.
So either he didn't read the bill, or he was lying about his intentions to sign that bill.
As I said before, provide me with some references--something beside rightwing commentary, and I will respond.
In the meantime, I guess you don't disagree with anything I posted about McCain, since you have offered nothing to refute it. Why don't you defend your guy? Maybe because his behavior is indefensible.
Palin/McCain--same old dirty politics. Thanks, but no thanks.
Palin/whats his name
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Palin/whats his name
I know, but it's still so funny!
(http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd230/NoDrama_08/mccain.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Secondly, the born alive vote lie is very simple to understand.
Obama was quoted as saying that he would have supported the Born Alive protection act if it would have contained language similar to the federal bill. He repeated this assertion at Saddleback.
The Illinois bill was identical to the Federal bill, yet he refused to sign it into law. I will post both if you'd like to see them. They are very, very short bills.
So either he didn't read the bill, or he was lying about his intentions to sign that bill.
As I said before, provide me with some references--something beside rightwing commentary, and I will respond.
In the meantime, I guess you don't disagree with anything I posted about McCain, since you have offered nothing to refute it. Why don't you defend your guy? Maybe because his behavior is indefensible.
Palin/McCain--same old dirty politics. Thanks, but no thanks.
Actually, I disagree with quite a bit of it. If you do recall, I've been a bit busy addressing some of your other questions. I'll respond when I'm done with this discussion.
In the meantime, I guess you don't disagree with anything I posted about Obama vis-a-vis handgun bans, since you have offered nothing to refute it. Why don't you defend your guy? Maybe because his behavior is indefensible.
Back to his abortion lie:
Mr. Obama contended that he "would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported," but that he voted against the 2003 Illinois bill because "that was not the bill that was presented at the state level." Except that it was. -- Realclear Politics (//%22http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/did_obama_lie_about_born_alive.html%22)Previous versions of the BAIPA were not identical to the Federal bill. The final version included the "neutrality" clause that he said he wanted in the bill. He got the language he asked for. He didn't vote for it.
Here are the two bills side by side. -- Bills (//%22http://www.nrlc.org/obamaBAIPA/Comparisonof2ILBAIPA.html%22)
So the statement that he was, "fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported" is a blatant lie.
If you don't like the Realclear politics link, the New York Times has the same quotes.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Secondly, the born alive vote lie is very simple to understand.
Obama was quoted as saying that he would have supported the Born Alive protection act if it would have contained language similar to the federal bill. He repeated this assertion at Saddleback.
The Illinois bill was identical to the Federal bill, yet he refused to sign it into law. I will post both if you'd like to see them. They are very, very short bills.
So either he didn't read the bill, or he was lying about his intentions to sign that bill.
As I said before, provide me with some references--something beside rightwing commentary, and I will respond.
In the meantime, I guess you don't disagree with anything I posted about McCain, since you have offered nothing to refute it. Why don't you defend your guy? Maybe because his behavior is indefensible.
Palin/McCain--same old dirty politics. Thanks, but no thanks.
Actually, I disagree with quite a bit of it. If you do recall, I've been a bit busy addressing some of your other questions. I'll respond when I'm done with this discussion.
In the meantime, I guess you don't disagree with anything I posted about Obama vis-a-vis handgun bans, since you have offered nothing to refute it. Why don't you defend your guy? Maybe because his behavior is indefensible.
As I said, filling out a single questionaire that said he would support a ban twelve years ago, and then saying he never support an
all out ban of handguns is a bit misleading. Luckily, unlike your guy, he isn't run campaign ads or making campaign speeches on this issue.
quote:
Back to his abortion lie:
Mr. Obama contended that he "would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported," but that he voted against the 2003 Illinois bill because "that was not the bill that was presented at the state level." Except that it was. -- Realclear Politics (//%22http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/did_obama_lie_about_born_alive.html%22)
Previous versions of the BAIPA were not identical to the Federal bill. The final version included the "neutrality" clause that he said he wanted in the bill. He got the language he asked for. He didn't vote for it.
Here are the two bills side by side. -- Bills (//%22http://www.nrlc.org/obamaBAIPA/Comparisonof2ILBAIPA.html%22)
So the statement that he was, "fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported" is a blatant lie.
If you don't like the Realclear politics link, the New York Times has the same quotes.
Really, are you an attorney? You understand that state law and federal law are two different things. The exact same language in a state law and a federal law can result in completely different outcomes, because they are governed by different constitutions and different laws. Obama explains that his vote against the 2003 act was based on the failure to include a provision that specified it would not interfere with
Illinois abortion laws. According to Planned Parenthood (//%22http://mediamatters.org/items/200808220022%22)
quote:
:
Finally, perhaps the most significant difference between the federal and state versions of the legislation is the fact that the federal version applied to federal law while the state version applied to Illinois law. The federal legislation was considered to be a restatement of existing federal law. The federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act did not amend or change Illinois law. At the time, there were no federal laws regulating abortion in any way. Therefore, the federal law did not limit access to abortion services or threaten legal action against physicians. But, Illinois law does regulate abortion and medical practice. Therefore, it is the state legislation that would have affected abortion practice in Illinois, not federal law. While these differences between the federal and state legislation may appear to be just legal technicalities, when it came to medical care for pregnant women the actual impact would have been significant.
In 2005, the Illinois legislature did finally pass the bill, once it included language that specifically excluded its affect on ILLINOIS law.
Remember, a lie is an assertion of fact that you know to be incorrect.
I understand that you don't support a woman's right to control her own body. But we are discussing LIES here. Even if you don't agree with his explanation, that doesn't mean he lied. (I wouldn't cite to Planned Parenthood as proof of his claim, but only cite to it to prove he had justification for his statement, and therefore it cannot be a lie).
In the future, you might try citing to some legitimate sources instead of the Right to Life Council and some editorial.
Back to your guy, why can't you defend him? And the lies keep coming. Today McCain admitted that Obama never called Palin a pig (//%22http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080915/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_lipstick;_ylt=Avd6HaAlTQQgKcH8iRnUiJBI2ocA%22).
She refuses to cooperate (//%22http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080916/ap_on_el_pr/palin_troopergate;_ylt=Aowkxni1p.jAhPgL7Hbow7RI2ocA%22) in the investigation that she previously welcomed (//%22http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/30/palin-aides-welcome-alaska-probe/%22).
And, not a lie, but I love the fact that today, Palin says that she has an idea to track all of the government's expenses online, like they do in Alaska. Hmmm, sounds a bit like the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act--the act that Obama & Coburn pushed through. http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/30/palin-aides-welcome-alaska-probe/
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
As I said, filling out a single questionaire that said he would support a ban twelve years ago, and then saying he never support an all out ban of handguns is a bit misleading. Luckily, unlike your guy, he isn't run campaign ads or making campaign speeches on this issue.
So even though he said that he NEVER favored an all out ban on handguns when he has explicitly stated so, with it recorded in written form isn't a lie? His statements were and are unambiguous. I think in the legal world that's called impeachable evidence.
quote:
Really, are you an attorney? You understand that state law and federal law are two different things. The exact same language in a state law and a federal law can result in completely different outcomes, because they are governed by different constitutions and different laws. Obama explains that his vote against the 2003 act was based on the failure to include a provision that specified it would not interfere with Illinois abortion laws. In 2005, the Illinois legislature did finally pass the bill, once it included language that specifically excluded its affect on ILLINOIS law.
First. Let me thank you in advance for the Media Matters link. Jesus Christ, would you like me to post something from Worldnetdaily for you?
This is not a matter of State vs Federal interpretation. This is AGAIN, a simple matter of his words and their plain meaning. He said that he would have voted for the Federal version of the bill. He was presented with the Federal version of the bill and voted against it.
This is what common folks call a "lie"
quote:
Remember, a lie is an assertion of fact that you know to be incorrect.
Yes. He said he would have voted for the Federal bill. He was presented with the Federal bill and voted against it. Ergo a "lie" on his part.
quote:
I understand that you don't support a woman's right to control her own body. But we are discussing LIES here. Even if you don't agree with his explanation, that doesn't mean he lied. (I wouldn't cite to Planned Parenthood as proof of his claim, but only cite to it to prove he had justification for his statement, and therefore it cannot be a lie).
Drop the nonsequitor bulls%it. Whether I support abortion or not has nothing to do with the plain meaning of his statements and the fact that he can't seem to take a consistent position on this issue.
quote:
In the future, you might try citing to some legitimate sources instead of the Right to Life Council and some editorial.
You are so disingenuous. You know damned well that the right to life council link I presented you was simply a PDF version of the bills side by side. I did not provide you with an editorial from them.
It's amazing you can't spot a blatant lie right in front of your face because you're quite adept at telling them yourself.
Geez, IP, calm down. I know your guy not doing so well these days, but there is no reason to start attacking people. Oh, right—that's what you/your candidate does when losing an argument.
I don't think I know you, IP, but I really hope that I never mistakenly hire you as an attorney. You haven't actually provided me with a source for Obama's full statement, but based upon what you are saying, he said he would support the federal bill. I was trying to be nice about citing to the Right to Life Council. Your source doesn't say what you say it says. It is a comparison of two different Illinois bills from different years. As a lawyer, it is really important to check your sources. Since you haven't provided a link to the federal bill, I cannot say for certain that the two bills were identical in wording. However, it is irrelevant because to be the same bills they must have the same result. According to several sources, they did not. Sorry you were so offended at my citing MediaMatters, but as I explained to you, I wasn't citing to them for the truth of the matter asserted. I simply offered the explanation from Obama's point of view. You can disagree, but you must prove that Obama knew it to be wrong in order to prove he lied. Obama said he supported the federal bill; to be a lie, he must have voted against a bill that would have provided the exact same protections as the federal bill. His position is that the state bill did not.
IP, we are not that stupid. Everyone knows that these "born alive" bills were pushed by right to life groups in an attempt to erode Roe v. Wade. Killing a baby was already illegal in Illinois. Obama was right to be suspicious of the bill. When language was included to immunize Illinois abortion regulation from the bill, Obama supported it. Ironically, right to life groups opposed it. I guess they don't really care about infanticide, but only about eroding a woman's right to control her body.
I understand your strategy—you are attacking Obama because you have no way of defending your candidate. Your candidate who lied once again on The View (//%22http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/view.bg?articleid=1118664&srvc=rss%22). And Palin, who lied about her teleprompter malfunctioning (//%22http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/15/palin-tells-debunked-teleprompter-tale/%22), and who is refusing to cooperate with the abuse of power investigation (the one she previously welcomed because she has nothing to hide).
I would welcome the federal investigation until the corrupt thugs in the Democratic Party got ahold of it, to make political hay and distort facts. I've seen your Parties Communist tactics in action before. You guys NEVER stop investigating, even when there is nothing to investigate. You have constant meaningless, time consuming investigations of Republicans going at all times. You destroy people WITH the investigations. It's a political tactic you've been using since Clinton took office. Once she cooperates, that investigation will go on through her entire Vice Presidency. You're a bunch of dogs.
I'm Crash daily and I approve this message.
quote:
Originally posted by Crash Daily
I would welcome the federal investigation until the corrupt thugs in the Democratic Party got ahold of it, to make political hay and distort facts. I've seen your Parties Communist tactics in action before. You guys NEVER stop investigating, even when there is nothing to investigate. You have constant meaningless, time consuming investigations of Republicans going at all times. You destroy people WITH the investigations. It's a political tactic you've been using since Clinton took office. Once she cooperates, that investigation will go on through her entire Vice Presidency. You're a bunch of dogs.
I'm Crash daily and I approve this message.
yet again another neocon slings the oh-so-dreaded "C" word around.
Like I've said, where there's smoke, there's likely some fire. And let's remember, the media found out about this first. Now that McCain is no longer the media darling, he's *****ing and moaning about it.
And let's remember, before she was made the veep pick, she AGREED to co-operate with the investigation. Now the campaign cronies say 'sorry, but no'.
This stinks to high heaven.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Geez, IP, calm down. I know your guy not doing so well these days, but there is no reason to start attacking people. Oh, right—that's what you/your candidate does when losing an argument.
I don't think I know you, IP, but I really hope that I never mistakenly hire you as an attorney. You haven't actually provided me with a source for Obama's full statement, but based upon what you are saying, he said he would support the federal bill. I was trying to be nice about citing to the Right to Life Council. Your source doesn't say what you say it says. It is a comparison of two different Illinois bills from different years. As a lawyer, it is really important to check your sources. Since you haven't provided a link to the federal bill, I cannot say for certain that the two bills were identical in wording. However, it is irrelevant because to be the same bills they must have the same result. According to several sources, they did not. Sorry you were so offended at my citing MediaMatters, but as I explained to you, I wasn't citing to them for the truth of the matter asserted. I simply offered the explanation from Obama's point of view. You can disagree, but you must prove that Obama knew it to be wrong in order to prove he lied. Obama said he supported the federal bill; to be a lie, he must have voted against a bill that would have provided the exact same protections as the federal bill. His position is that the state bill did not.
IP, we are not that stupid. Everyone knows that these "born alive" bills were pushed by right to life groups in an attempt to erode Roe v. Wade. Killing a baby was already illegal in Illinois. Obama was right to be suspicious of the bill. When language was included to immunize Illinois abortion regulation from the bill, Obama supported it. Ironically, right to life groups opposed it. I guess they don't really care about infanticide, but only about eroding a woman's right to control her body.
I understand your strategy—you are attacking Obama because you have no way of defending your candidate. Your candidate who lied once again on The View (//%22http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/view.bg?articleid=1118664&srvc=rss%22). And Palin, who lied about her teleprompter malfunctioning (//%22http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/15/palin-tells-debunked-teleprompter-tale/%22), and who is refusing to cooperate with the abuse of power investigation (the one she previously welcomed because she has nothing to hide).
I'm not wasting any more time on you. I provided you quotes from Obama on the born alive bills taken from interviews. Why would it mater if I provided you more that you're going to ignore? I presented EXACT quotations from Obama on banning handguns and you DISMISSED them.
This debate is not about polcy details, i.e. whether the born alive bill errodes RvW. It's about your presidential candidate who contradicts his own explicit statements.
quote:
to be a lie, he must have voted against a bill that would have provided the exact same protections as the federal bill.
That would be wonderful if that was what he said, but that's not the case. You can't play monday morning quarterback and reinvent his quotes.
Can we not take your candidate's word at face value or must we run everything he says through Pmcalk's Obama-to-Bullsh$t translator?
IP, I agree that it may be best for you to just give up at this point, since you seem incapable of proving your point. For the record, you never did provide me with Obama's quote--just a snippet from a right wing editorial. You never provided a copy of the bill. Just repeating "he lied" does not prove anything.
Meanwhile, your VP candidate's lying has become pathological. She's not even lying about stuff that matters. Today, in her "interview" with Hannity (//%22http://thepage.time.com/excerpts-from-palins-hannity-interview-part-i/%22), she said when she was asked to be VP for McCain, she first consulted with her family and took a vote. Yet, just last week in her interview Gibson, she said she didn't "blink" when asked to be VP. And when her husband was interviewed on Fox (//%22http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,423843,00.html%22), her husband said that he kept her appointment a secret from the kids, and told them they were going on a surprise trip.
Which story is true? I know that the Republicans love to create narratives about their candidates--instead of offering anything of substance--but you've got to stick with the same narrative.
And that's not even getting into the three different versions she's provided for firing her public safety commissioner.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
IP, I agree that it may be best for you to just give up at this point, since you seem incapable of proving your point. For the record, you never did provide me with Obama's quote--just a snippet from a right wing editorial. You never provided a copy of the bill. Just repeating "he lied" does not prove anything.
Meanwhile, your VP candidate's lying has become pathological. She's not even lying about stuff that matters. Today, in her "interview" with Hannity (//%22http://thepage.time.com/excerpts-from-palins-hannity-interview-part-i/%22), she said when she was asked to be VP for McCain, she first consulted with her family and took a vote. Yet, just last week in her interview Gibson, she said she didn't "blink" when asked to be VP. And when her husband was interviewed on Fox (//%22http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,423843,00.html%22), her husband said that he kept her appointment a secret from the kids, and told them they were going on a surprise trip.
Which story is true? I know that the Republicans love to create narratives about their candidates--instead of offering anything of substance--but you've got to stick with the same narrative.
And that's not even getting into the three different versions she's provided for firing her public safety commissioner.
..ha,ha, good one.
Did her contract say "...of voting age..." in it anywhere?
That's what I do, whenever there's really BIG family decisions to make, I round up the kids....especially the babies since it's their future.
Do you suppose she meant 'her' family....husband, brothers, sisters, parents...?
Naw, it was a lie.
You guys are digging pretty hard to find something to hook on. How 'bout giving it a rest and talk issues?
In fact, your energy would better be spent on local issues since the Presidential race is all but a done deal in this State.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
IP, I agree that it may be best for you to just give up at this point, since you seem incapable of proving your point. For the record, you never did provide me with Obama's quote--just a snippet from a right wing editorial. You never provided a copy of the bill. Just repeating "he lied" does not prove anything.
Meanwhile, your VP candidate's lying has become pathological. She's not even lying about stuff that matters. Today, in her "interview" with Hannity (//%22http://thepage.time.com/excerpts-from-palins-hannity-interview-part-i/%22), she said when she was asked to be VP for McCain, she first consulted with her family and took a vote. Yet, just last week in her interview Gibson, she said she didn't "blink" when asked to be VP. And when her husband was interviewed on Fox (//%22http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,423843,00.html%22), her husband said that he kept her appointment a secret from the kids, and told them they were going on a surprise trip.
Which story is true? I know that the Republicans love to create narratives about their candidates--instead of offering anything of substance--but you've got to stick with the same narrative.
And that's not even getting into the three different versions she's provided for firing her public safety commissioner.
..ha,ha, good one.
Did her contract say "...of voting age..." in it anywhere?
That's what I do, whenever there's really BIG family decisions to make, I round up the kids....especially the babies since it's their future.
Do you suppose she meant 'her' family....husband, brothers, sisters, parents...?
Naw, it was a lie.
You guys are digging pretty hard to find something to hook on. How 'bout giving it a rest and talk issues?
In fact, your energy would better be spent on local issues since the Presidential race is all but a done deal in this State.
Ha, ha...Her kids are old enough to breed, marry and fight in the service. Isn't that old enough to be briefed on actions that will affect the rest of their lives?
We continue to try to enlighten people who might read about ambition and hypocrisy in politics because some of them can still be saved. Its a long struggle in Okieville but even if we can save one...
Besides, forums are read, (monitored) by others outside our province. That internet thing don'cha know.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
IP, I agree that it may be best for you to just give up at this point, since you seem incapable of proving your point. For the record, you never did provide me with Obama's quote--just a snippet from a right wing editorial. You never provided a copy of the bill. Just repeating "he lied" does not prove anything.
Meanwhile, your VP candidate's lying has become pathological. She's not even lying about stuff that matters. Today, in her "interview" with Hannity (//%22http://thepage.time.com/excerpts-from-palins-hannity-interview-part-i/%22), she said when she was asked to be VP for McCain, she first consulted with her family and took a vote. Yet, just last week in her interview Gibson, she said she didn't "blink" when asked to be VP. And when her husband was interviewed on Fox (//%22http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,423843,00.html%22), her husband said that he kept her appointment a secret from the kids, and told them they were going on a surprise trip.
Which story is true? I know that the Republicans love to create narratives about their candidates--instead of offering anything of substance--but you've got to stick with the same narrative.
And that's not even getting into the three different versions she's provided for firing her public safety commissioner.
Wow. Again, you play loose and fast with the quotes and blatantly make up things. Yet you accuse others of lying...
Nowhere in Mr. Palin's interview does he say that the kids weren't previously informed that she was being considered for the veep spot. Nor does it say that they weren't involved in the decision making process.
He said that the final decision was not communicated to them and it was to be a surprise. Here are his words:
quote:
And then -- so I was tasked to have our kids ready in case she got the nod. And so I'm deciding -- you know, and you can't tell anybody. You can't tell the kids where you're going. And at that time, I didn't have any communication with Sarah. And so what do I do, you know? I can't tell the kids at night. They'll be up all night on their phones. You know, Well, I might go somewhere tomorrow.
So this was Thursday morning. I wake them up at 5:00 o'clock in the morning, and I said, OK, hey, we're going on a surprise trip to celebrate your mom and I's anniversary, 20th anniversary. So give me your cell phones. Well, why do you want my cell phone? Because I know you're going to call people, and you might call mom and ask what's going on.
You're reading between the lines and making up facts to suit your anti-Palin fantasies.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
IP, I agree that it may be best for you to just give up at this point, since you seem incapable of proving your point. For the record, you never did provide me with Obama's quote--just a snippet from a right wing editorial. You never provided a copy of the bill. Just repeating "he lied" does not prove anything.
Meanwhile, your VP candidate's lying has become pathological. She's not even lying about stuff that matters. Today, in her "interview" with Hannity (//%22http://thepage.time.com/excerpts-from-palins-hannity-interview-part-i/%22), she said when she was asked to be VP for McCain, she first consulted with her family and took a vote. Yet, just last week in her interview Gibson, she said she didn't "blink" when asked to be VP. And when her husband was interviewed on Fox (//%22http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,423843,00.html%22), her husband said that he kept her appointment a secret from the kids, and told them they were going on a surprise trip.
Which story is true? I know that the Republicans love to create narratives about their candidates--instead of offering anything of substance--but you've got to stick with the same narrative.
And that's not even getting into the three different versions she's provided for firing her public safety commissioner.
Wow. Again, you play loose and fast with the quotes and blatantly make up things. Yet you accuse others of lying...
Nowhere in Mr. Palin's interview does he say that the kids weren't previously informed that she was being considered for the veep spot. Nor does it say that they weren't involved in the decision making process.
He said that the final decision was not communicated to them and it was to be a surprise. Here are his words:
quote:
And then -- so I was tasked to have our kids ready in case she got the nod. And so I'm deciding -- you know, and you can't tell anybody. You can't tell the kids where you're going. And at that time, I didn't have any communication with Sarah. And so what do I do, you know? I can't tell the kids at night. They'll be up all night on their phones. You know, Well, I might go somewhere tomorrow.
So this was Thursday morning. I wake them up at 5:00 o'clock in the morning, and I said, OK, hey, we're going on a surprise trip to celebrate your mom and I's anniversary, 20th anniversary. So give me your cell phones. Well, why do you want my cell phone? Because I know you're going to call people, and you might call mom and ask what's going on.
You're reading between the lines and making up facts to suit your anti-Palin fantasies.
Alaska's 'first dude' was on Gretta's show and he made it sound like it was a total surprise, having the little party aminals hand over their cell phones so as not to let anyone know they were leaving the state.
'Sarah Palin wears less makeup than John Edwards and is twice the woman he is.'
Yes. The ANNOUNCEMENT was a surprise. That's all he said. He gave NO indications as to whether or not they had been informed that she was being considered or whether they had had any conversations with the kids about her being considered.
The details matter.
Of course the Dims have long since forgotten about a corrupt little Governor from Arkansas they once were in love with. That was different, right?
Lies are only important to you when you THINK the other guy is telling them. According to pmcalk, everything Palin ever says is a lie, and she's not above twisting people's words or interpolating the data to prove it to you!
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Of course the Dims have long since forgotten about a corrupt little Governor from Arkansas they once were in love with. That was different, right?
If you're talking about experience on a gubernatorial/executive level, it's apples and oranges. She's had 2 years. Clinton had 11 through both terms as governor. Plus, he had two years as Arkansas' AG. So he did have some executive experience, as well as judicial.
Plus, the Little Rock metro area is arguably larger in population than the entire state of Alaska.
But don't let facts get in the way here.
It amuses me that a guy 8 years removed from office still pisses many republicans off after that time. I don't see a whole lot of Dems lamenting the Reagan years with the same vitriol I see from many Repubs.
I'll leave Conan off that list though, because he did refer to him as 'the most productive' President in recent memory, if I recall seeing that post correctly. Please correct me if I'm wrong; I have about 20 windows open already.
[:D]
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Of course the Dims have long since forgotten about a corrupt little Governor from Arkansas they once were in love with. That was different, right?
If you're talking about experience on a gubernatorial/executive level, it's apples and oranges. She's had 2 years. Clinton had 11 through both terms as governor. Plus, he had two years as Arkansas' AG. So he did have some executive experience, as well as judicial.
Plus, the Little Rock metro area is arguably larger in population than the entire state of Alaska.
But don't let facts get in the way here.
It amuses me that a guy 8 years removed from office still pisses many republicans off after that time. I don't see a whole lot of Dems lamenting the Reagan years with the same vitriol I see from many Repubs.
I'll leave Conan off that list though, because he did refer to him as 'the most productive' President in recent memory, if I recall seeing that post correctly. Please correct me if I'm wrong; I have about 20 windows open already.
[:D]
President Clinton doesn't piss me off.
I believe my statement was "one of the most effective Presidents in history".
I'm simply pointing to the fact that a corrupt governor from Arkansas with no foreign policy, energy, or big finance experience, (he was admittedly weak on the environment) was perfectly acceptible as the head of the ticket in 1992 to Democrats. He brought no unique skill sets from Arkansas to the federal level other than excellent political skills as defined by his personality.
Palin has a few skirmishes which are being desperately twisted into "scandals" at best "corruption" at worst. Clinton most definitely had been involved in some seriously shady deals. Using the libtard logic being applied to Palin, Clinton wasn't qualified to be President either, yet he will go down in history as one of the best.
Clinton couldn't shoot a moose either. [;)]
McCain launches a new ad campaign that even FOX NEWS says isn't truthful
http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/09/18/mccain-to-push-obama-as-tax-and-spend-liberal/
From the new ad:
"And, we would pay — painful income taxes, skyrocketing taxes on life savings, electricity and home heating oil. Can your family afford that?"
From the Fox News story regarding that quote:
Obama officials take issue with that characterization, calling it a bald-faced lie, and independent groups like the Tax Policy Center have conducted analyses showing that Obama's plan will actually provide greater tax relief to the middle class.
Depends on what the definitions of the words "shoot" and "moose" are.
(http://images.pcworld.com/opinion/graphics/137824-MonicaLewinsky.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by swake
McCain launches a new ad campaign that even FOX NEWS says isn't truthful
http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/09/18/mccain-to-push-obama-as-tax-and-spend-liberal/
From the new ad:
"And, we would pay — painful income taxes, skyrocketing taxes on life savings, electricity and home heating oil. Can your family afford that?"
From the Fox News story regarding that quote:
Obama officials take issue with that characterization, calling it a bald-faced lie, and independent groups like the Tax Policy Center have conducted analyses showing that Obama's plan will actually provide greater tax relief to the middle class.
I didn't see you respond to the Obama ad that ABC news said was a lie this morning. For Christ's sake, get over it! It's called politics and both sides fudge the facts in these ads.
BTW, you should try reading. Fox news, quoting an Obama aid is not, de facto, calling the add a lie. It's called reporting both sides of the story.
I know that's a confusing thought in today's current media Obamagasm.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
McCain launches a new ad campaign that even FOX NEWS says isn't truthful
http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/09/18/mccain-to-push-obama-as-tax-and-spend-liberal/
From the new ad:
"And, we would pay — painful income taxes, skyrocketing taxes on life savings, electricity and home heating oil. Can your family afford that?"
From the Fox News story regarding that quote:
Obama officials take issue with that characterization, calling it a bald-faced lie, and independent groups like the Tax Policy Center have conducted analyses showing that Obama's plan will actually provide greater tax relief to the middle class.
No Swake, Fox news carried Obama's response which says it's not truthful.
Wow, one campaign said the other is lying. We've not seen this before in a political season.
I might just have to vote for Obama now.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by swake
McCain launches a new ad campaign that even FOX NEWS says isn't truthful
http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/09/18/mccain-to-push-obama-as-tax-and-spend-liberal/
From the new ad:
"And, we would pay — painful income taxes, skyrocketing taxes on life savings, electricity and home heating oil. Can your family afford that?"
From the Fox News story regarding that quote:
Obama officials take issue with that characterization, calling it a bald-faced lie, and independent groups like the Tax Policy Center have conducted analyses showing that Obama's plan will actually provide greater tax relief to the middle class.
No Swake, Fox news carried Obama's response which says it's not truthful.
Wow, one campaign said the other is lying. We've not seen this before in a political season.
I might just have to vote for Obama now.
But, the story also confirms Obama's claim with quotes from independent watchdog groups.
And this isn't some liberal blog or even CNN, this is the more than a little right leaning Fox News.
The story doesn't "confirm" anything. It's called balanced reporting that takes information from both sides and allows the reader to draw conclusions.
There are other "independent" tax groups that call Obama's plan smoke and mirrors. Namely that his plan would INCREASE the deficit by 3.4 trillion dollars by 2018. That number incidently comes from the same "independent" tax group that was quoted in the Fox story.
Obama does plan to give handouts to 40% of Americans who already don't pay taxes, but his plan raises taxes on small businesses from about 38% to 50.3%.
So unless you don't work for a big corporation or a small business you're safe from Obama's tax hikes...
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
The story doesn't "confirm" anything. It's called balanced reporting that takes information from both sides and allows the reader to draw conclusions.
There are other "independent" tax groups that call Obama's plan smoke and mirrors. Namely that his plan would INCREASE the deficit by 3.4 trillion dollars by 2018. That number incidently comes from the same "independent" tax group that was quoted in the Fox story.
Obama does plan to give handouts to 40% of Americans who already don't pay taxes, but his plan raises taxes on small businesses from about 38% to 50.3%.
So unless you don't work for a big corporation or a small business you're safe from Obama's tax hikes...
The issue here isn't the tax plan or it's impact on the deficit.
The issue is that that the McCain "straight talk" express has become the Complete Bullsh!t Express.
You can't trust a damn thing that comes out of that campaign anymore. Who cares how great McCain's promises are when he seemingly doesn't even care about trying to tell the truth?
Hell, even he said Obama wasn't calling Palin a pig, but that didn't stop his ads that said Obama did.
No the issue is that you refuse to read without a biased, political filter.
Just like pmcalk, if you can't find a story that says exactly what you want, you find one that you can interpolate or massage into saying what you want it to.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by swake
McCain launches a new ad campaign that even FOX NEWS says isn't truthful
http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/09/18/mccain-to-push-obama-as-tax-and-spend-liberal/
From the new ad:
"And, we would pay — painful income taxes, skyrocketing taxes on life savings, electricity and home heating oil. Can your family afford that?"
From the Fox News story regarding that quote:
Obama officials take issue with that characterization, calling it a bald-faced lie, and independent groups like the Tax Policy Center have conducted analyses showing that Obama's plan will actually provide greater tax relief to the middle class.
I didn't see you respond to the Obama ad that ABC news said was a lie this morning. For Christ's sake, get over it! It's called politics and both sides fudge the facts in these ads.
BTW, you should try reading. Fox news, quoting an Obama aid is not, de facto, calling the add a lie. It's called reporting both sides of the story.
I know that's a confusing thought in today's current media Obamagasm.
Actually, Fox News reporting both sides is the confusing part....
[:O]
Not if you actually watch them instead of listening to other news organizations pissing and moaning about them. Success tends to poison the well when it comes to competitors...
[:O]
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Not if you actually watch them instead of listening to other news organizations pissing and moaning about them. Success tends to poison the well when it comes to competitors...
[:O]
Actually I used to watch them quite a bit until they did become the 'RepublicanTalkingPoints News Channel', right around the time Bush took office.
Wow. For someone to say Fox isn't biased is rich. Take the blinkers off.
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Not if you actually watch them instead of listening to other news organizations pissing and moaning about them. Success tends to poison the well when it comes to competitors...
[:O]
Actually I used to watch them quite a bit until they did become the 'RepublicanTalkingPoints News Channel', right around the time Bush took office.
Wow. For someone to say Fox isn't biased is rich. Take the blinkers off.
They only look conservative in comparison to the other dinos out there. Every news org has reporters in the tank for one side or the other. The idea of an "objective" news is nonsense in the first place. That is, until computers are reporting the news, expect bias.
I find Fox delivers both sides far more often. Even Oreilly, who is clearly a conservative, provides commentators from both sides when he discusses issues, just as he did every night after Obama's interviews.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Not if you actually watch them instead of listening to other news organizations pissing and moaning about them. Success tends to poison the well when it comes to competitors...
[:O]
Actually I used to watch them quite a bit until they did become the 'RepublicanTalkingPoints News Channel', right around the time Bush took office.
Wow. For someone to say Fox isn't biased is rich. Take the blinkers off.
They only look conservative in comparison to the other dinos out there. Every news org has reporters in the tank for one side or the other. The idea of an "objective" news is nonsense in the first place. That is, until computers are reporting the news, expect bias.
I find Fox delivers both sides far more often. Even Oreilly, who is clearly a conservative, provides commentators from both sides when he discusses issues, just as he did every night after Obama's interviews.
Karl Rove thinks McCain's ads need to be more truthful.
When Karl Rove thinks a Republican has gone too far, in the real world that Republican has gone way, way, way too far.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Karl Rove thinks McCain's ads need to be more truthful.
When Karl Rove thinks a Republican has gone too far, in the real world that Republican has gone way, way, way too far.
Care to provide us all with a quote on this? I saw the interview and that's not what he said.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by swake
Karl Rove thinks McCain's ads need to be more truthful.
When Karl Rove thinks a Republican has gone too far, in the real world that Republican has gone way, way, way too far.
Care to provide us all with a quote on this? I saw the interview and that's not what he said.
Sure, I can give you a quote:
"McCain has gone in some of his ads -- similarly gone one step too far," he told Fox News, "and sort of attributing to Obama things that are, you know, beyond the '100 percent truth' test."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/14/campaign.wrap/
If you don't like CNN, here's FoxNews again:
Former Bush campaign guru Karl Rove said Sunday that both campaigns' attacks have "gone one step too far," adding that some McCain spots go "beyond the 100-percent-truth test."
http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/09/14/rove-mccain-attacks-have-gone-one-step-too-far/
I still don't see where Rove said that McCain's ads needed to be more "truthful" which is what you claimed. This is the problem of "ad-libing" with quotes. I don't care what you're interpretations are. Don't attribute statements or positions to people when they didn't say them.
Rove also went on to say:
"Both campaigns are making a mistake, and that is they are taking whatever their attacks are and going one step too far."
So is it just McCain going to far or Obama also. You can't have it both ways. Either Rove is correct or he's incorrect. Which is it?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
I still don't see where Rove said that McCain's ads needed to be more "truthful" which is what you claimed.
Rove also went on to say:
"Both campaigns are making a mistake, and that is they are taking whatever their attacks are and going one step too far."
So is it just McCain going to far or Obama also. You can't have it both ways. Either Rove is correct or he's incorrect. Which is it?
What part of "attacks have "gone one step too far"" and are "beyond the 100-percent-truth test" are you not getting?
And please, this is Karl Rove. He wrote the book on dirty Republican campaigning; of course he is going to say that Obama's ads are wrong. Rove would boo Santa Claus if he found out he was a Democrat.
The story here is that one of the most partisan people on the planet thinks McCain's ads have gone too far.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
I still don't see where Rove said that McCain's ads needed to be more "truthful" which is what you claimed. This is the problem of "ad-libing" with quotes. I don't care what you're interpretations are. Don't attribute statements or positions to people when they didn't say them.
Rove also went on to say:
"Both campaigns are making a mistake, and that is they are taking whatever their attacks are and going one step too far."
So is it just McCain going to far or Obama also. You can't have it both ways. Either Rove is correct or he's incorrect. Which is it?
It depends.
What is Turd Blossom's definition of 'correct' as opposed to the rest of the free thinking nation?
quote:
Originally posted by swake
What part of "attacks have "gone one step too far"" and are "beyond the 100-percent-truth test" are you not getting?
And please, this is Karl Rove. He wrote the book on dirty Republican campaigning; of course he is going to say that Obama's ads are wrong. Rove would boo Santa Claus if he found out he was a Democrat.
The story here is that one of the most partisan people on the planet thinks McCain's ads have gone too far.
What you seem not to "get" is his simultaneous indictment of Obama. If he's right about McCain stretching the truth then he's right about Obama stretching the truth. Unless you make a habit out of quoting people who lie as evidence to back up your claims.
I've asked you several times about the ABC story running today where they accuse the Obama campaign of running ads that are "unfair" and deliberately take quotes "out of context"
Here it is yet again, so you can ignore it again:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/from-the-fact-1.html
You can't have it both ways...oh right, you voted for John Kerry.
My bad.
IP, your wisdom is being cast as pearls to swine. They know you are right, they just don't want to admit it.
I don't think it takes any wisdom to ask someone to be consistent.
Apply the same standards consistently across the board for each candidate.
IOW, don't point at the other guy and say he's lying when you're own nose is 10 feet long Pinocchio.
I will say it. Obama's ad is bad and should be pulled.
I would say that the ad is similar to Bush ads tying Gore to Clinton, it's not fair to tie McCain to Limbaugh, they don't get along and often have fought in the past over issues, but, a vote for McCain is a vote that supports Limbaugh's positions being continued. It's not false, it's more a stretch. Calling Limbaugh McCain's friend is false.
As for the rest of the Ad, McCain has largely flip-flopped on his position on immigration reform and now sounds just like any other right wing Republican. Any hits he takes for that are earned.
Obama's ad is not as bad or as blatantly false as McCain's, but it still should be pulled. McCain's ad should have been pulled long ago when it's lies were confirmed and to build all new ads on the same falsehood takes real balls. It's all the more disturbing because McCain's whole political life is one of being known as a straight shooting maverick who went his own way. Well, he's thrown all that in the trash in this campaign.
I've always thought Obama was a little full of crap. His not taking federal campaign funds after he pledged to do so already showed that. His preaching too much daisies and sunshine about what's going to happen when he's elected confirms it. All politicians stretch the truth, it what you do to get elected and I've never liked Obama's missives on how he's SO different.
That said, the level of constant, blatant and unremorseful bullsh!t coming from McCain is shocking.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
I will say it. Obama's ad is bad and should be pulled.
I would say that the ad is similar to Bush ads tying Gore to Clinton, it's not fair to tie McCain to Limbaugh, they don't get along and often have fought in the past over issues, but, a vote for McCain is a vote that supports Limbaugh's positions being continued. It's not false, it's more a stretch. Calling Limbaugh McCain's friend is false.
As for the rest of the Ad, McCain has largely flip-flopped on his position on immigration reform and now sounds just like any other right wing Republican. Any hits he takes for that are earned.
Obama's ad is not as bad or as blatantly false as McCain's, but it still should be pulled. McCain's ad should have been pulled long ago when it's lies were confirmed and to build all new ads on the same falsehood takes real balls. It's all the more disturbing because McCain's whole political life is one of being known as a straight shooting maverick who went his own way. Well, he's thrown all that in the trash in this campaign.
I've always thought Obama was a little full of crap. His not taking federal campaign funds after he pledged to do so already showed that. His preaching too much daisies and sunshine about what's going to happen when he's elected confirms it. All politicians stretch the truth, it what you do to get elected and I've never liked Obama's missives on how he's SO different.
That said, the level of constant, blatant and unremorseful bullsh!t coming from McCain is shocking.
Swake, I love your mock shock and horror.
Personally, we need more than a load of sunshine right now, but I do take solace in knowing the Oklahoma votes for Obama are for naught.
[}:)]
Factcheck.org yet again in my inbox:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/there_he_goes_again.html
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
Factcheck.org yet again in my inbox:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/there_he_goes_again.html
A little late to the party. I think we established that politicians on both sides create ads like this all the time.
Is this your first election?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
Factcheck.org yet again in my inbox:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/there_he_goes_again.html
A little late to the party. I think we established that politicians on both sides create ads like this all the time.
Is this your first election?
Hardly
[:O]
It just drives home my point about McCain Make em ignore the issues with smear.
Deceive, inveigle and obfuscate.
Now McCain (who has spent his entire legislative life as a deregulator) is FOR regulation in the markets.
I guess he really is all about change.
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
Factcheck.org yet again in my inbox:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/there_he_goes_again.html
A little late to the party. I think we established that politicians on both sides create ads like this all the time.
Is this your first election?
Hardly
[:O]
It just drives home my point about McCain Make em ignore the issues with smear.
Deceive, inveigle and obfuscate.
You ever bother to fact check the Lord Messiah's ads. Factcheck has plenty of write-ups on his less than truthful ads. Why do you ignore those?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
Factcheck.org yet again in my inbox:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/there_he_goes_again.html
A little late to the party. I think we established that politicians on both sides create ads like this all the time.
Is this your first election?
Hardly
[:O]
It just drives home my point about McCain Make em ignore the issues with smear.
Deceive, inveigle and obfuscate.
You ever bother to fact check the Lord Messiah's ads. Factcheck has plenty of write-ups on his less than truthful ads. Why do you ignore those?
Obfuscate...
Did I say he didn't? If you look at factcheck.org, who has been getting their wrist slapped more since they're respective conventions? It would be McCain/Palin.
Are you conveniently ignoring that fact?
First, factcheck.org is not the only arbiter of truth in this campaign. Other news organizations like ABC have rightly smacked the Obama campaign for false ads they have run recently (i.e., the Spanish ad) which factcheck.org has conveniently failed to address.
Again, is this the first presidential campaign you payed attention to?
This crap from both sides is par for the course.
Once I see you tear up an Obama ad I'll believe that you actually care about fairness or truth.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
First, factcheck.org is not the only arbiter of truth in this campaign. Other news organizations like ABC have rightly smacked the Obama campaign for false ads they have run recently (i.e., the Spanish ad) which factcheck.org has conveniently failed to address.
Again, is this the first presidential campaign you payed attention to?
This crap from both sides is par for the course.
Once I see you tear up an Obama ad I'll believe that you actually care about fairness or truth.
You do notice that factcheck usually doesn't address a specific ad for two to three days at a time, right? Probably because they are 'factchecking'. Something which BOTH parties are lax at, but lately, on moreso than another.
One is spewing out and out lies on a more consistent basis than another.
My reason for one over the other is because McCain, in a speech earlier this year, said he intended not 'to take the low road' in this campaign.
Another deception? Obviously. But then why would I expect a career politician, especially a Repub, to tell the truth. We've had 8 years of BS from Bush.
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
One is spewing out and out lies on a more consistent basis than another.
Eh, I counted, since the first of August looks like 11 "busts" on Obama vs. 13 on McCain.
Some of the "busts" are characterized as stretching the truth. Some of those stretches are probably reasons you would vote for Obama just as they might be reason for someone to vote for McCain.
I'm leery of any source being the final arbitor in what is and is not factual in a political race. It's a sleazy business.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
One is spewing out and out lies on a more consistent basis than another.
Eh, I counted, since the first of August looks like 11 "busts" on Obama vs. 13 on McCain.
Some of the "busts" are characterized as stretching the truth. Some of those stretches are probably reasons you would vote for Obama just as they might be reason for someone to vote for McCain.
I'm leery of any source being the final arbitor in what is and is not factual in a political race. It's a sleazy business.
We can definitely agree on that. I will say I think Factcheck.org doesn't appear to have an agenda either way. I don't like citing info from purely partisan sources (freerepublic for the right, obviously someplace like dailykos for the left). But the vitriol coming out on both sides can be hard to wade through.
One thing is for sure though, this is one of the most emotionally charged races in recent memory.
BTW, has anybody been to Phat Philly's yet? Went there today for lunch and it wasn't too bad. A lot of my companions didn't agree with me, but I liked it.
Prolly a whole lot you and I agree on. I dislike you a whole lot less than the other libs around here. [}:)][;)]
Factcheck is an offshoot from the Annenberg Foundation and it's various think tanks.
http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/
Probably as close to balanced as you will see.
And another:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/09/obamas_fannie_mae_connection.html
"Obama has no background in economics. Who advises him? The Post says it's Franklin Raines, for "advice on mortgage and housing policy." Shocking. Under Raines, Fannie Mae committed "extensive financial fraud." Raines made millions. Fannie Mae collapsed. Taxpayers? Stuck with the bill."
--McCain video release, September 18, 2008.
An already nasty presidential election campaign is getting nastier. The meltdown on Wall Street has touched off frantic attempts by both the McCain and Obama camps to secure political advantage and indulge in guilt by association. Over the last 24 hours, both campaigns have issued video press releases (let's not call them ads until they actually air somewhere) attempting to show that the other side's "advisers" are somehow responsible for the crisis. The latest McCain attack is particularly dubious.
The Facts
The McCain video attempts to link Obama to Franklin Raines, the former CEO of the bankrupt mortgage giant, Fannie Mae, who also happens to be African-American. It then shows a photograph of an elderly white woman taxpayer who has supposedly been "stuck with the bill" as a result of the "extensive financial fraud" at Fannie Mae.
The Obama campaign last night issued a statement by Raines insisting, "I am not an advisor to Barack Obama, nor have I provided his campaign with advice on housing or economic matters." Obama spokesman Bill Burton went a little further, telling me in an e-mail that the campaign had "neither sought nor received" advice from Raines "on any matter."
So what evidence does the McCain campaign have for the supposed Obama-Raines connection? It is pretty flimsy, but it is not made up completely out of whole cloth. McCain spokesman Brian Rogers points to three items in the Washington Post in July and August. It turns out that the three items (including an editorial) all rely on the same single conversation, between Raines and a Washington Post reporter, Anita Huslin, who wrote a Style section profile of the discredited Fannie Mae boss that appeared on July 16. The profile reported that Raines, who retired from Fannie Mae four years ago, had "taken calls from Barack Obama's presidential campaign seeking his advice on mortgage and housing policy matters."
Since this has now become a campaign issue, I asked Huslin to provide the exact circumstances of the quote. She explained that she was chatting with Raines during the photo shoot, and asked "if he was engaged at all with the Democrats' quest for the White House. He said that he had gotten a couple of calls from the Obama campaign. I asked him about what, and he said 'oh, general housing, economy issues.' ('Not mortgage/foreclosure meltdown or Fannie-specific,' I asked, and he said 'no.')"
By Raines's own account, he took a couple of calls from someone on the Obama campaign, and they had some general discussions about economic issues. I have asked both Raines and the Obama people for more details on these calls, and will let you know if I receive a reply.
The Pinocchio Test
The McCain campaign is clearly exaggerating wildly in attempting to depict Franklin Raines as a close adviser to Obama on "housing and mortgage policy." If we are to believe Raines, he did have a couple of telephone conversations with someone in the Obama campaign. But that hardly makes him an adviser to the candidate himself--and certainly not in the way depicted in the McCain video release.
^
Why would you need anyone else's advice when you have Carly Fiorina (Queen of the outsourcing.....
"No American has a God given right to a job." Carly Fiorina..
Boy did you see that golden gilded
parachute Carly Fiorina...
Hewlett Packard is her Legacy Carly Fiorina..
I don't know why they keep Gramm around when they have Carly Fiorina.
Another documented Palin lie from Troopergate
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5844710&page=1
I'm not sure, but I think Swake might secretly be shilling for Obama.
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
One is spewing out and out lies on a more consistent basis than another.
Eh, I counted, since the first of August looks like 11 "busts" on Obama vs. 13 on McCain.
Some of the "busts" are characterized as stretching the truth. Some of those stretches are probably reasons you would vote for Obama just as they might be reason for someone to vote for McCain.
I'm leery of any source being the final arbitor in what is and is not factual in a political race. It's a sleazy business.
We can definitely agree on that. I will say I think Factcheck.org doesn't appear to have an agenda either way. I don't like citing info from purely partisan sources (freerepublic for the right, obviously someplace like dailykos for the left). But the vitriol coming out on both sides can be hard to wade through.
One thing is for sure though, this is one of the most emotionally charged races in recent memory.
BTW, has anybody been to Phat Philly's yet? Went there today for lunch and it wasn't too bad. A lot of my companions didn't agree with me, but I liked it.
Where is Phat Pilly's located and what type of food do they serve?
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I'm not sure, but I think Swake might secretly be shilling for Obama.
Hardly,
I'm no Obamaniac. My support for him is luke warm at best. I didn't vote for him in the primaries. He's not experienced enough and doesn't have enough of a record to know what he would really do. But he's far better than the alternative.
What I am for is the end of the current brand of Republican rule. Early in the primary season I thought McCain (or even Giuliani) might serve that end as well, but McCain has more than proven himself to be one of the same old Rovian Neo-Con Republican crowd who have overstayed their welcome. They aren't conservatives, they are self serving, faux-Christian, intellectually incurious, power hungry pseudo-conservatives for whom the end always justifies the means. This country can't take four more years of that.
quote:
Originally posted by Crash Daily
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Hoss
One is spewing out and out lies on a more consistent basis than another.
Eh, I counted, since the first of August looks like 11 "busts" on Obama vs. 13 on McCain.
Some of the "busts" are characterized as stretching the truth. Some of those stretches are probably reasons you would vote for Obama just as they might be reason for someone to vote for McCain.
I'm leery of any source being the final arbitor in what is and is not factual in a political race. It's a sleazy business.
We can definitely agree on that. I will say I think Factcheck.org doesn't appear to have an agenda either way. I don't like citing info from purely partisan sources (freerepublic for the right, obviously someplace like dailykos for the left). But the vitriol coming out on both sides can be hard to wade through.
One thing is for sure though, this is one of the most emotionally charged races in recent memory.
BTW, has anybody been to Phat Philly's yet? Went there today for lunch and it wasn't too bad. A lot of my companions didn't agree with me, but I liked it.
Where is Phat Pilly's located and what type of food do they serve?
11th and Detroit and very funny. [:D]
They serve Philly Cheese Steak sandwiches.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
....McCain has more than proven himself to be one of the same old Rovian Neo-Con Republican crowd...
Thanks for proving my point
Soros Swake
Who's the liar in this campaign?
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Obama+in+the+mud%3a+So+much+for+honesty&articleId=25fbff30-e785-4106-af08-92f0bbe63968