View Full Version : Counting the lies.....
Sarah Palin's visit to Iraq in 2007 consisted of a brief stop at a border crossing between Iraq and Kuwait, the vice presidential candidate's campaign said yesterday, in the second official revision of her only trip outside North America.
Following her selection last month as John McCain's running mate, aides said Palin had traveled to Ireland, Germany, Kuwait, and Iraq to meet with members of the Alaska National Guard. During that trip she was said to have visited a "military outpost" inside Iraq. The campaign has since repeated that Palin's foreign travel included an excursion into the Iraq battle zone.
But in response to queries about the details of her trip, campaign aides and National Guard officials in Alaska said by telephone yesterday that she did not venture beyond the Kuwait-Iraq border when she visited Khabari Alawazem Crossing, also known as "K-Crossing," on July 25, 2007.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/09/13/palin_camp_clarifies_extent_of_iraq_trip/
Sept. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Senator John McCain has drawn some of the biggest crowds of his presidential campaign since adding Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to his ticket on Aug. 29. Now officials say they can't substantiate the figures McCain's aides are claiming.
McCain aide Kimmie Lipscomb told reporters on Sept. 10 that an outdoor rally in Fairfax City, Virginia, drew 23,000 people, attributing the crowd estimate to a fire marshal.
Fairfax City Fire Marshal Andrew Wilson said his office did not supply that number to the campaign and could not confirm it. Wilson, in an interview, said the fire department does not monitor attendance at outdoor events.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a1J0tfV3XJYs&refer=politics
GIBSON: You have said continually, since he chose you as his vice-presidential nominee, that I said to Congress, thanks but not thanks. If we're going to build that bridge, we'll build it ourselves.
PALIN: Right.
GIBSON: But it's now pretty clearly documented. You supported that bridge before you opposed it. You were wearing a t-shirt in the 2006 campaign, showed your support for the bridge to nowhere.
PALIN: I was wearing a t-shirt with the zip code of the community that was asking for that bridge. Not all the people in that community even were asking for a $400 million or $300 million bridge.
GIBSON: But you turned against it after Congress had basically pulled the plug on it; after it became apparent that the state was going to have to pay for it, not the Congress; and after it became a national embarrassment to the state of Alaska. So do you want to revise and extend your remarks.
PALIN: It has always been an embarrassment that abuse of the ear form -- earmark process has been accepted in Congress. And that's what John McCain has fought. And that's what I joined him in fighting. It's been an embarrassment, not just Alaska's projects. But McCain gives example after example after example. I mean, every state has their embarrassment.
GIBSON: But you were for it before you were against it. You were solidly for it for quite some period of time...
PALIN: I was...
GIBSON: ... until Congress pulled the plug.
PALIN: I was for infrastructure being built in the state. And it's not inappropriate for a mayor or for a governor to request and to work with their Congress and their congressmen, their congresswomen, to plug into the federal budget along with every other state a share of the federal budget for infrastructure.
GIBSON: Right.
PALIN: What I supported was the link between a community and its airport. And we have found that link now.
LYING MCCAIN
It's become pathological. John McCain just claimed on TV that Sarah Palin has never requested an earmark for her state -- when actually her state gets more earmarks than any other state in the country. And this year she asked for $197 million worth of them herself.
Even the AP couldn't ignore his lying -- even though they phrased it in their own anemic way. "When pressed about Palin's record of requesting and accepting such money for Alaska, McCain ignored the record and said: "Not as governor she didn't."
For the record Palin requested $197 million this year and $256 million last year. Per capita, that's $288 this year and $376 last year.
To give you some perspective, Palin herself requested at least ten times the dollar value of earmarks as most states get total every year.
TPM.com
The question is, is there anything McCain/Palin Haven't lied about? We all know politicians of any stripe tend to massage the truth, but this pair are two of the biggest lying liars in the history of the game. I'll be updating this thread with repeated lies on a regular basis. This is merely an appetizer....
SUBMAN1
09-13-08, 12:32 PM
Don't even make me start in on Obama, such as not being a Muslim, etc.
-S
Frame57
09-13-08, 12:37 PM
Right! Like Slick Willy never having sex with that woman...Lying to congress...You think that Barak never heard Jeremiah Wrong's racist anti-american sermons after going to that church for 20 years? The bilge rat sold those sermons in the church lobby...How about the Clintons and Biden just 2 montha ago claiming that this junior seneator was not qualified to handle the presidency? Now all of a sudden he is? The Pinocchio's here are the dems!
Task Force
09-13-08, 12:38 PM
Seems the only truthful thing they have said is there name.:lol: (possiably)
I don't always agree with Krauthammer but I think his review of the Palin interview is spot on:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Charlie Gibson's Gaffe
By Charles Krauthammer
Saturday, September 13, 2008; Page A17
"At times visibly nervous . . . Ms. Palin most visibly stumbled when she was asked by Mr. Gibson if she agreed with the Bush doctrine. Ms. Palin did not seem to know what he was talking about. Mr. Gibson, sounding like an impatient teacher, informed her that it meant the right of 'anticipatory self-defense.' "
-- New York Times, Sept. 12
Informed her? Rubbish.
The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.
There is no single meaning of the Bush Doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.
He asked Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush Doctrine?"
She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, "In what respect, Charlie?"
Sensing his "gotcha" moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine "is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense."
ad_icon
Wrong.
I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush Doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, "The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism," I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush Doctrine.
It's not. It's the third in a series and was superseded by the fourth and current definition of the Bush doctrine, the most sweeping formulation of the Bush approach to foreign policy and the one that most clearly and distinctively defines the Bush years: the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world. It was most dramatically enunciated in Bush's second inaugural address: "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world."
This declaration of a sweeping, universal American freedom agenda was consciously meant to echo John Kennedy's pledge in his inaugural address that the United States "shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." It draws also from the Truman doctrine of March 1947 and from Wilson's 14 points.
If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume -- unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise -- that he was speaking about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration.
Not the Gibson doctrine of preemption.
Not the "with us or against us" no-neutrality-is-permitted policy of the immediate post-9/11 days.
Not the unilateralism that characterized the pre-9/11 first year of the Bush administration.
Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed "doctrines" in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.
Such is not the case with the Bush Doctrine.
Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn't pretend to know -- while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and "sounding like an impatient teacher," as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes' reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.
Such is not the case with the Bush Doctrine.
Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson.
I would feel better about that if I thought, for a minute, Bush knew either. ;)
Such is not the case with the Bush Doctrine.
Yes, Sarah Palin didn't know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson.
I would feel better about that if I thought, for a minute, Bush knew either. ;)
Do ya think Monroe knew he was making a "doctrine" back in 1823?
sunvalleyslim
09-13-08, 03:43 PM
[quote=SUBMAN1]Don't even make me start in on Obama, such as not being a Muslim, etc.
Right On Subman1.......................The campaigns all throw out B.S. t That's what U.S. politics is about........what a shame.................:down::down:
Skybird
09-13-08, 04:13 PM
One thing is certain. Watergate does not matter. Iran-Contra-affair is of no concern. Failed wars being launched - who cares.
A Democrat's president putting his Willy where it did not belong, and trying to hide that from the public while the other party tries to parade him through the streets over that like a trophy - that is the all important issue american history is made of! Hallelujah!
Who needs real world politics? Hypocritic "values" is what we need!
"We train young men to drop fire on people - but their commanders won't allow them to write FU CK! on their aeroplane, because: it's "obscene". (Kurtz in "Apoicalyse Now")
Campaigns sell BS because people buy BS more than anything else :know:
That's why the masses stink. Intelligence eventually I only see in the single person. The greater the crowd, the more intelligence dies. Stupidity and intelligence - are social phenomenons before anything else.
One thing is certain. Watergate does not matter. Iran-Contra-affair is of no concern. Failed wars being launched - who cares.
A Democrat's president putting his Willy where it did not belong, and trying to hide that from the public while the other party tries to parade him through the streets over that like a trophy - that is the all important issue american history is made of! Hallelujah!
Who needs real world politics? Hypocritic "values" is what we need!
"We train young men to drop fire on people - but their commanders won't allow them to write FU CK! on their aeroplane, because: it's "obscene". (Kurtz in "Apoicalyse Now")
Campaigns sell BS because people buy BS more than anything else :know:
That's why the masses stink. Intelligence eventually I only see in the single person. The greater the crowd, the more intelligence dies. Stupidity and intelligence - are social phenomenons before anything else.
You have in a few short paragraphs summarized while I will never ever go into politics, at least maybe beyond the municipal level. To the majority, policy means nothing. Your haircut or who you're dating are much more interesting.
Monica Lewinsky
09-13-08, 05:23 PM
Your haircut or who you're dating are much more interesting.
More interesting -
http://www.peteyandpetunia.com/VoteHere/VoteHere.htm
Platapus
09-13-08, 06:16 PM
Is this not called misdirection?
When a thread is written about one issue and people come along and try to nullify the discussion by hijacking it on to another issue?
Whether Senator Obama has, is, or will lie is totally independent to the issue whether McCain/Palin has, is, or will lie.
Skybird
09-13-08, 06:44 PM
Is this not called misdirection?
When a thread is written about one issue and people come along and try to nullify the discussion by hijacking it on to another issue?
Whether Senator Obama has, is, or will lie is totally independent to the issue whether McCain/Palin has, is, or will lie.
Has MacCain's campaigns manager not proudly boasted that he is not about issues?
It's all about show and playing con tricks. Very serious stuff. The world stops revolving in reverence. Panem et circensis. The conventions are the best evidence - directed propaganda shows from A to Z, planned to the last detail and most minor gesture. It has to be as perfect like ten fish sticks in the paclkage - eleven are too much, and nine or one too few.
Buy it, people, buy the shiny shine!
Monica Lewinsky
09-13-08, 07:11 PM
the self appointed Messiah … will loose ... I Hope. He's from our state and we can not stand him anymore, or any of his B.S along with our WORTHLESS govenor. The sight or hearing him, makes most of us puke in Illinois. To prove the point, notice how the DNC gave NO TIME to our JERK HEAD govenor to be in the nomination process - that is a FIRST since 1900!
If you believe his crap, then shame on you. For 143 Days as a senator from Illinois, before announcing he is a running, he accomplished NOTHING in the Senate which is his MAIN job ... Absolutely ... NOTHING other than saying "present" for a vote or two.
The guy is a GREAT con-artist for the young - don't fall for it.
I do NOT like EITHER party canidates. Was for the first time going to vote third party, but there is no one there. :p
Platapus
09-13-08, 07:39 PM
[FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]If you believe his crap, then shame on you. For 143 Days as a senator from Illinois he accomplished NOTHING ... before running for office ... Absolutely ... NOTHING other than saying "present" for a vote or two.
Well I can see you are getting confused here.
Obama spent 143 days in the Federal Senate where he did introduce/sponsor/cosponsor some pretty handy bills. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bills_sponsored_by_Barack_Obama_in_the_Uni ted_States_Senate
Secondly, when he voted "present" it was when he was on the State Senate not the Federal Senate. In Illinois State Senators are allowed to vote present when they wish to object to some part of the legislation. Senator Obama voted Present 130 times out of over 4,000 votes in just under six years, so he voted present only 3% of the time.
Since you don't seem to know the Legislative history of Senator Obama from your own state, your opinion lacks credibility. :nope:
Monica Lewinsky
09-13-08, 07:41 PM
Since you don't seem to know the Legislative history of Senator Obama from your own state, your opinion lacks credibility. :nope:
He's still Fecal Matter in Illinois ... pure, worthless, dung.
SUBMAN1
09-13-08, 07:49 PM
Sounds like a full time job :lol:
Subman, your trolls used to be somewhat more subtle :rotfl:Are you really this dumb on what the definition of trolling is? :hmm: :yep: You attack me directly once again when I am simply responding to the subject at hand? I know you're not that bright as compared to others here, but I expect better than that. Read your statement again and compare it to mine above it, and then go educate yourself on what exactly trolling is! You will find only one real troll here, and its not me.
By the way, in case you didn't notice, both sides have their issues. On the Obama side, they are flat lies. On the McCain side, I could see where he may not have been aware exactly, so I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt.
Even the liberal magazine Time has said McCain is brutely honest. This means, I doubt he is lying, but possibly not as well informed as he need be for the subject he is being asked.
-S
Sailor Steve
09-13-08, 09:00 PM
First, let me say that this is a very nice example of people from both sides finding it easier to just slam the other side than try to find some actual answers. It looks like Enigma could care less about the actual issues than just proving that the candidate from the other side is worthless. And SUBMAN1 comes back with the witty reply that he can show the candidate on the other side is even more worthless.
@ Mikhayl: I don't think SUBMAN1 qualifies as a troll, because as I understand it a troll just stirs up trouble, and I think SM1 really believes what he says and that he's doing the community a service by trashing the other side, much as Enigma does.
That said, Mikhayl is responding to the fact that SM1 seems to think that honest debate is something to be avoided and only ever posts with insults rather than discussions on the issues, then accuses anyone who points this out of attacking him. He then goes on to counter-attack with insults on the original's intelligence, and claims to have issues with both sides but only one of them is worthy of his 'satire'.
By the way, in case you didn't notice, both sides have their issues. On the Obama side, they are flat lies. On the McCain side, I could see where he may not have been aware exactly, so I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt.
But the general conception is that you support McCain and hate Obama, and besides the occassional denial everything you say seems to support that observation.
This is why people give warnings about debating politics and religion. What we have on this thread is not a debate, or even an argument, but a feces-flinging contest of the highest order. I love a good debate, but some of you don't seem capable of engaging in one.
No honesty from either side here, yet both claim the other is lying and they're not.
UnderseaLcpl
09-13-08, 09:02 PM
http://i393.photobucket.com/albums/pp14/lcplmaryott/1204036764700.jpg
Ok, continue!!!
Neptunus Rex
09-13-08, 09:35 PM
One thing is certain. Watergate does not matter. Iran-Contra-affair is of no concern. Failed wars being launched - who cares.
A Democrat's president putting his Willy where it did not belong, and trying to hide that from the public while the other party tries to parade him through the streets over that like a trophy - that is the all important issue american history is made of! Hallelujah!
Who needs real world politics? Hypocritic "values" is what we need!
"We train young men to drop fire on people - but their commanders won't allow them to write FU CK! on their aeroplane, because: it's "obscene". (Kurtz in "Apoicalyse Now")
That's why the masses stink. Intelligence eventually I only see in the single person. The greater the crowd, the more intelligence dies. Stupidity and intelligence - are social phenomenons before anything else.
Well, well, well. Look who decides to poke his head into what can surely be considered a purely American concern.
Wasn't it you who suggested that America should stick to it's own interests. Is it American conservatives that you despise or all such people. Or is it Americans in general?
I seem to recall you didn't have too high of an opinion of your own President when she was running for office.
Crawl back under that rock of yours! Judging from the news accounts in the last few years, Europeans need to be paying a liittle more attention to their own front yard before concerning themselves with the neighbor's.
NObama, NObama, NObama!
Wolfehunter
09-13-08, 10:07 PM
If you all know all the parties at hand are crooks. Why not not vote any people into power? Wouldn't that screw up the whole process? Maybe that message would tell polititians people are fedup with bull lies etc.
Even in my country there are not government representatives supporting the people as a whole. Their only taking care of their friends and bankers plus rich investors.
I haven't voted in years. I won't support legal criminal organizations. AKA current Government of Canada!
Neptunus Rex
09-14-08, 08:04 AM
If you all know all the parties at hand are crooks. Why not not vote any people into power? Wouldn't that screw up the whole process? Maybe that message would tell polititians people are fedup with bull lies etc.
Even in my country there are not government representatives supporting the people as a whole. Their only taking care of their friends and bankers plus rich investors.
I haven't voted in years. I won't support legal criminal organizations. AKA current Government of Canada!
Oh yeah, right! President pro-tem Nancy Pelosi? I don't think so.
If you don't vote, don't bitch about the outcome or the policies that follow. If citizens can't be expected to perform their least of civil obligations, not to mention the one that requires the least amount of physical effort, then that nation has not much of a future.
And before the response arguments start, yes that includes the USA. Voter apathy is one of the biggest causes of Congressional authority abuse in the US.
NObama, NOPelosi either!
Wolfehunter
09-14-08, 01:35 PM
I don't bitch. I don't vote not because I'm not participating I am. I'm making my example shown. Unfortunately others don't care or show the same ideals.
So the governments will run as is on a small minoraty voting class in the elections.
The rest of the ballets are fixed.
Frame57
09-14-08, 01:37 PM
Yep! And no Feinstein and no Harry pickle puss Reid etc.... :up:
JoeCorrado
09-14-08, 02:23 PM
The real Sarah Palin is getting her lipstick smeared... soon she will be totally exposed for just the simple minded pitbull that she really is, and always will be. There is no place for people like this in American Politics and Bush proved as much for all of us to understand the true choices offered in this election.
For real change, Vote Obama-Biden.
For more of the same- or worse, vote McCain-Palin
Link: The Sarah Palin Record being exposed more every day. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?pagewanted=all)
Frame57
09-14-08, 02:27 PM
No place for this in American politics (HA ha!) Sounds like Adolph Hitler's point of view....
The real Sarah Palin is getting her lipstick smeared... soon she will be totally exposed for just the simple minded pitbull that she really is, and always will be. There is no place for people like this in American Politics and Bush proved as much for all of us to understand the true choices offered in this election.
For real change, Vote Obama-Biden.
For more of the same- or worse, vote McCain-Palin
Link: The Sarah Palin Record being exposed more every day. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?pagewanted=all)
Wait.. you are asking people to vote for someone who asks a guy who sits in a wheel chair to stand up, and mocks McCain for not being able to handle a computer because of his injuries he received in the service for his country?
Mhm.. seems rather discriminatory to me, don't ya think?
What will be the change again? Oh, right.. I will have to foot your medical bill.., my capital gains taxes go up, I will probably loose my student grants ( he was not really clear on that one). What else? Oh yea, he advocates increased Federal spending. Hey, if you want him to spend more of your money thats fine and dandy, but keep your hands off my trove.
Thanks, but no thanks.
I do believe that Obama plans on cutting back taxes for the middle/lower class and raising it for the wealthy.
Also, I would like those who believe Obama lies to please tell me what these lies are, just curious.
Platapus
09-14-08, 03:52 PM
[QUOTE=Thomen] mocks McCain for not being able to handle a computer because of his injuries he received in the service for his country? /QUOTE]
I have never heard McCain claim that his injuries would prevent him from using a computer. Looking at him, I can't see how they could prevent it. John McCain does not use a computer but cause he has never had the need to use a computer. He has staff to handle that sort of stuff.
How many old guy executives are in the same boat?
I am sure that McCain could learn to use a computer if he had a need to.
[quote=Thomen] mocks McCain for not being able to handle a computer because of his injuries he received in the service for his country? /QUOTE]
I have never heard McCain claim that his injuries would prevent him from using a computer. Looking at him, I can't see how they could prevent it. John McCain does not use a computer but cause he has never had the need to use a computer. He has staff to handle that sort of stuff.
How many old guy executives are in the same boat?
I am sure that McCain could learn to use a computer if he had a need to.
Lemme see if i can find the the page again..
JoeCorrado
09-14-08, 04:01 PM
The real Sarah Palin is getting her lipstick smeared... soon she will be totally exposed for just the simple minded pitbull that she really is, and always will be. There is no place for people like this in American Politics and Bush proved as much for all of us to understand the true choices offered in this election.
For real change, Vote Obama-Biden.
For more of the same- or worse, vote McCain-Palin
Link: The Sarah Palin Record being exposed more every day. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?pagewanted=all)
Wait.. you are asking people to vote for someone who asks a guy who sits in a wheel chair to stand up, and mocks McCain for not being able to handle a computer because of his injuries he received in the service for his country?
Mhm.. seems rather discriminatory to me, don't ya think?
What will be the change again? Oh, right.. I will have to foot your medical bill.., my capital gains taxes go up, I will probably loose my student grants ( he was not really clear on that one). What else? Oh yea, he advocates increased Federal spending. Hey, if you want him to spend more of your money thats fine and dandy, but keep your hands off my trove.
Thanks, but no thanks.
You sure do seem to be confused. That is OK though, just stay in school and continue learning about these things. While you study, please allow me to assist in your intellectual enlightenment:
In opening, please face the fact that McCain's "disabilities" as you describe them certainly do not prohibit from learning to use a computer in any way. What is alarming is that you somehow wish to link McCain's services 40 years ago to this election as if they mattered more than his marital infidelities. If you really wish to make his past behavior a topic for discussion- understand that you get the bad with the good and as his Keating Five Buddies might agree- you really don't want to go there with me.
Now, on to your rambling and inaccurate reply to my own well thought out, factual, and reasonable comments. :rotfl:
1st: I pay for my own medical insurance, so unless you wish to begin your next statement with an illiterate misrepresentation- please confine your comments to the public facts and not my personal situation of which you know nothing.
2nd: I and every other American pays currently for a disease care system that will prevent a person from seeing their doctor for a case of the sniffles, but will dip into the public coffers to foot the bill when the sniffles deteriorate to pneumonia because of a lack of care and a $3.00 prescription.
3rd: As you must know, it is illegal for a hospital to turn away a person based upon their ability to pay, but there is no such prohibition made upon doctors who are quite able to tell those who cannot pay for the office visit to simply return to the street and die there. THAT situation is one that unnecessarily costs the American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars each year.
4th: A large and ever growing segment of the population already receives socialized health care- they are those who receive Medicare, Medicaid and as you must surely know- that number is growing.
Medicare serves Social Security beneficiaries 65 years and older, as
well as the long-term disabled.3 In 2003, 85 percent of the 41 million
Medicare recipients qualified because of age. Link (http://rooseveltinstitution.org/news-files/review/hausauer_archie_boge_ortega_pratt.pdf)
5th: Please- complain to me of your capital gains taxes going up after you have seen them reduced year after year in the backwards attempt to make "trickle down economics" work in America. I am willing to pay more because I can afford it while it seems you are quite willing to see millions others suffer so that you can afford to what... send yourself through college based upon those "capital gains cuts" and those student grants are would appear to come under the same "welfare" programs that you are so against when they assist some other American other than yourself. THAT my friend smacks of things that I will not describe here in order to spare exposing your hypocrisy.
6th: You dare to bring up increased federal spending in defense of an administration and a political party that has nearly bankrupted the American People?? You dare to spout nonsense about fiscal responsibility after eight years of George Bushes spend, spend, spend and borrow, borrow, borrow policies that have catered to the few at the expense of the many and to out children. Take it somewhere else champ that garbage won't fly here.
7th: Your trove you say? Keep my hands of your trove?? Listen up partner- you claim to be a student- that means that either you got your "trove" through inheritance or through some ill gotten means. Please explain to me how a student requiring "grants" to get through college has such an impressive trove to start with? Or was that just banging out the latest talking points from McCain.com??
I could go on, and I am tempted since you make it so easy, but instead I would suggest that you learn the facts behind the issues before you enter the polling place or you may just get what you want- and in your case I am sure that that would be just exactly what you deserve.
__________
Obama will cut taxes for nearly all Americans, unless you "EARN" over $250,000.00 per year, you will not see a tax increase for those earnings.
Obama will GIVE you a $4,000.00 tax credit to attend college- how does negatively affect your "grants" in any way?
Obama WILL make it the right of every American Citizen to seek medical care for minor ailment and not just the serious and life threatening ones that we pay for today. Seems a smart and affective way to get control of the current system that is actually broken in a very expensive and backward thinking way. We MUST fix health care for several reasons besides the one that addresses your initial grievance. Health care costs are out of control and unless it is fixed- we face a national disaster of truly "epidemic" proportions.
If you choose to respond to my reply- please comes armed with something more substantial and factual than your initial post. I don't mind enlightening those who are misled or misinformed- but you do bare a little responsibility in understanding the facts and not just regurgitating McCain's latest hype.
mocks McCain for not being able to handle a computer because of his injuries he received in the service for his country?
I have never heard McCain claim that his injuries would prevent him from using a computer. Looking at him, I can't see how they could prevent it. John McCain does not use a computer but cause he has never had the need to use a computer. He has staff to handle that sort of stuff.
How many old guy executives are in the same boat?
I am sure that McCain could learn to use a computer if he had a need to.
Ok.. got it:
The reason McCain gets help with e-mail is that his severe war injuries prevent him from doing many things many of us take for granted, including typing on a keyboard.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/09/14/more-obama-cant-e-mail-attack-ad-mccain-internet-pioneer-dem-internet-pi
And here is: Why it might be a bad idea of using e-mail in the white house:
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/04/24/email.subpoena/index.html
Basically, if you use e-mail in the WH, you SOL if the s@#$ hits the fan. So, yea.. no need to be computer savvy, plus we do not want anyone loose their jobs because the Pres wants to type everything himself. ;)
The real Sarah Palin is getting her lipstick smeared... soon she will be totally exposed for just the simple minded pitbull that she really is, and always will be. There is no place for people like this in American Politics and Bush proved as much for all of us to understand the true choices offered in this election.
For real change, Vote Obama-Biden.
For more of the same- or worse, vote McCain-Palin
Link: The Sarah Palin Record being exposed more every day. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?pagewanted=all)
Wait.. you are asking people to vote for someone who asks a guy who sits in a wheel chair to stand up, and mocks McCain for not being able to handle a computer because of his injuries he received in the service for his country?
Mhm.. seems rather discriminatory to me, don't ya think?
What will be the change again? Oh, right.. I will have to foot your medical bill.., my capital gains taxes go up, I will probably loose my student grants ( he was not really clear on that one). What else? Oh yea, he advocates increased Federal spending. Hey, if you want him to spend more of your money thats fine and dandy, but keep your hands off my trove.
Thanks, but no thanks.
You sure do seem to be confused. That is OK though, just stay in school and continue learning about these things. While you study, please allow me to assist in your intellectual enlightenment:
In opening, please face the fact that McCain's "disabilities" as you describe them certainly do not prohibit from learning to use a computer in any way. What is alarming is that you somehow wish to link McCain's services 40 years ago to this election as if they mattered more than his marital infidelities. If you really wish to make his past behavior a topic for discussion- understand that you get the bad with the good and as his Keating Five Buddies might agree- you really don't want to go there with me.
Now, on to your rambling and inaccurate reply to my own well thought out, factual, and reasonable comments. :rotfl:
1st: I pay for my own medical insurance, so unless you wish to begin your next statement with an illiterate misrepresentation- please confine your comments to the public facts and not my personal situation of which you know nothing.
2nd: I and every other American pays currently for a disease care system that will prevent a person from seeing their doctor for a case of the sniffles, but will dip into the public coffers to foot the bill when the sniffles deteriorate to pneumonia because of a lack of care and a $3.00 prescription.
3rd: As you must know, it is illegal for a hospital to turn away a person based upon their ability to pay, but there is no such prohibition made upon doctors who are quite able to tell those who cannot pay for the office visit to simply return to the street and die there. THAT situation is one that unnecessarily costs the American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars each year.
4th: A large and ever growing segment of the population already receives socialized health care- they are those who receive Medicare, Medicaid and as you must surely know- that number is growing.
Medicare serves Social Security beneficiaries 65 years and older, as
well as the long-term disabled.3 In 2003, 85 percent of the 41 million
Medicare recipients qualified because of age. Link (http://rooseveltinstitution.org/news-files/review/hausauer_archie_boge_ortega_pratt.pdf)
5th: Please- complain to me of your capital gains taxes going up after you have seen them reduced year after year in the backwards attempt to make "trickle down economics" work in America. I am willing to pay more because I can afford it while it seems you are quite willing to see millions others suffer so that you can afford to what... send yourself through college based upon those "capital gains cuts" and those student grants are would appear to come under the same "welfare" programs that you are so against when they assist some other American other than yourself. THAT my friend smacks of things that I will not describe here in order to spare exposing your hypocrisy.
6th: You dare to bring up increased federal spending in defense of an administration and a political party that has nearly bankrupted the American People?? You dare to spout nonsense about fiscal responsibility after eight years of George Bushes spend, spend, spend and borrow, borrow, borrow policies that have catered to the few at the expense of the many and to out children. Take it somewhere else champ that garbage won't fly here.
7th: Your trove you say? Keep my hands of your trove?? Listen up partner- you claim to be a student- that means that either you got your "trove" through inheritance or through some ill gotten means. Please explain to me how a student requiring "grants" to get through college has such an impressive trove to start with? Or was that just banging out the latest talking points from McCain.com??
I could go on, and I am tempted since you make it so easy, but instead I would suggest that you learn the facts behind the issues before you enter the polling place or you may just get what you want- and in your case I am sure that that would be just exactly what you deserve.
__________
Obama will cut taxes for nearly all Americans, unless you "EARN" over $250,000.00 per year, you will not see a tax increase for those earnings.
Obama will GIVE you a $4,000.00 tax credit to attend college- how does negatively affect your "grants" in any way?
Obama WILL make it the right of every American Citizen to seek medical care for minor ailment and not just the serious and life threatening ones that we pay for today. Seems a smart and affective way to get control of the current system that is actually broken in a very expensive and backward thinking way. We MUST fix health care for several reasons besides the one that addresses your initial grievance. Health care costs are out of control and unless it is fixed- we face a national disaster of truly "epidemic" proportions.
If you choose to respond to my reply- please comes armed with something more substantial and factual than your initial post. I don't mind enlightening those who are misled or misinformed- but you do bare a little responsibility in understanding the facts and not just regurgitating McCain's latest hype.
tl;dr ;] lol sorry, regardless of my stance ont he issue, and yours, I really appreciate the effort that went into writing that post :up: Maybe I'll grow a pair and try to read/comprehend all of that at some point.
snippage for unimportance and mistated facts. You are just too smart for me! :hmm:
I just skimmed through it, but you might want to fact check some of your statements.
Medicare and Medicaid are completely different. Medicare is insurance that is funded by trust funds that the recipients have paid into. Medicaid is welfare/assistance.
http://hhs.gov/faq/medicaremedicaid/85.html
Furthermore, you might want to re-think and re-word your statement about hospitals. The EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act) only requires that a hospital provide examination and treatment for emergency medical condition, and then only if they have an emergency department.
http://injury-law.freeadvice.com/malpractice_law/hospital_patients.htm
http://public.findlaw.com/abaflg/flg-17-1b-3.html
But hey, nobody is perfect.
And with that, I will leave you to your pipe dreams of superiority. :up:
Wow. You go away for 24 hours.....:lol:
From my favorite Subsimmer:
t looks like Enigma could care less about the actual issues than just proving that the candidate from the other side is worthless.
Couldn't be further from the truth. I'm simply infuriated with the sheer volume of completely intentional and downright lies coming from McCains campaign. I don't say here that Obama is fantastic and the other guy sucks. I say the volume of BS from the McCain campaign is astounding. I don't think Democrats should be outraged, I think Americans should. noone in the so called liberal media has yet to call them on these and many other lies. It's a national disgrace, in my humble opinion.
As for the issues, I have an opinion on just about all of them, and by and large, I disagree With McCain on just about every issue.
I actually kinda like John. He's a rare breed of human being, and I have alot of respect for his service to this country in more ways than one. I can't understand why he is willing to allow his campaign to become such a mill for outright lies, especially with regards to Palin. The scarier idea, is that he doesn't know what is a lie and isn't.
Bridge to nowhere lies. After dropping this part of her stump speech while in Alaska, she's at it again......
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/13/1394679.aspx
To top it off, McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said this to the Politico about the increased media scrutiny of the campaign's factual claims: "We’re running a campaign to win. And we’re not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say about it.”
Nice.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/13/1393986.aspx
Platapus
09-14-08, 06:57 PM
The reason McCain gets help with e-mail is that his severe war injuries prevent him from doing many things many of us take for granted, including typing on a keyboard.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/09/14/more-obama-cant-e-mail-attack-ad-mccain-internet-pioneer-dem-internet-pi
Fair enough, I never knew that.
"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."
Know who said that? Liberal Media? Nope. Karl Frikkin Rove. :rotfl:
Sailor Steve
09-14-08, 07:01 PM
Couldn't be further from the truth. I'm simply infuriated with the sheer volume of completely intentional and downright lies coming from McCains campaign. I don't say here that Obama is fantastic and the other guy sucks. I say the volume of BS from the McCain campaign is astounding. I don't think Democrats should be outraged, I think Americans should. noone in the so called liberal media has yet to call them on these and many other lies. It's a national disgrace, in my humble opinion.
Sorry if I got it wrong. I just see some saying how awful one side is, and others claiming the other side is a slug, and I don't see many solutions being offered other than to say "Don't vote for that guy - he's a jerk!" Which is not to say I have any solutions either, but watching people take one side or the other and then try to pretend they're being fair and open-minded wears me out.
I'm just looking for the right third-party guy to write in, so people don't tell me I can't complain because I didn't vote.
The reason McCain gets help with e-mail is that his severe war injuries prevent him from doing many things many of us take for granted, including typing on a keyboard.
Indeed. You will notice he doesn't lift his arms above shoulder height. Damage done to him by his captors using methods of torture. Terrible thing. :nope:
It adds to my confusion, however, that a man having experienced such evil would support a bill that allows the CIA to use methods of torture. (http://www.newsweek.com/id/158767) :nope:
Sorry if I got it wrong. I just see some saying how awful one side is, and others claiming the other side is a slug, and I don't see many solutions being offered other than to say "Don't vote for that guy - he's a jerk!" Which is not to say I have any solutions either, but watching people take one side or the other and then try to pretend they're being fair and open-minded wears me out.
No apology necessary, and point well taken. I just felt it was worth talking about.
First, let me say that this is a very nice example of people from both sides finding it easier to just slam the other side than try to find some actual answers. It looks like Enigma could care less about the actual issues than just proving that the candidate from the other side is worthless. And SUBMAN1 comes back with the witty reply that he can show the candidate on the other side is even more worthless.
@ Mikhayl: I don't think SUBMAN1 qualifies as a troll, because as I understand it a troll just stirs up trouble, and I think SM1 really believes what he says and that he's doing the community a service by trashing the other side, much as Enigma does.
That said, Mikhayl is responding to the fact that SM1 seems to think that honest debate is something to be avoided and only ever posts with insults rather than discussions on the issues, then accuses anyone who points this out of attacking him. He then goes on to counter-attack with insults on the original's intelligence, and claims to have issues with both sides but only one of them is worthy of his 'satire'.
By the way, in case you didn't notice, both sides have their issues. On the Obama side, they are flat lies. On the McCain side, I could see where he may not have been aware exactly, so I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt.
But the general conception is that you support McCain and hate Obama, and besides the occassional denial everything you say seems to support that observation.
This is why people give warnings about debating politics and religion. What we have on this thread is not a debate, or even an argument, but a feces-flinging contest of the highest order. I love a good debate, but some of you don't seem capable of engaging in one.
No honesty from either side here, yet both claim the other is lying and they're not.
Am I the only one with a headache???:doh:
Also if anyone needed more on the whole bridge to no where thing i posted these in another thread :P I'm still surprised that fox news is actually reporting this correctly for once, WTF IS GOING ON?!
http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/511471.html
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohkdj1Gw9Ac)http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ici5RhMkh6-9V07yckpLBEEjzf6QD932MU100
http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSN3125537020080901
(http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ici5RhMkh6-9V07yckpLBEEjzf6QD932MU100)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hG7WGVmVl-4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EA7WrCipkck&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohkdj1Gw9Ac)
The reason McCain gets help with e-mail is that his severe war injuries prevent him from doing many things many of us take for granted, including typing on a keyboard.
Indeed. You will notice he doesn't lift his arms above shoulder height. Damage done to him by his captors using methods of torture. Terrible thing. :nope:
It adds to my confusion, however, that a man having experienced such evil would support a bill that allows the CIA to use methods of torture. (http://www.newsweek.com/id/158767) :nope:
He understands what a great tool it is ;)
Von Tonner
09-15-08, 05:06 AM
The reason McCain gets help with e-mail is that his severe war injuries prevent him from doing many things many of us take for granted, including typing on a keyboard.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/09/14/more-obama-cant-e-mail-attack-ad-mccain-internet-pioneer-dem-internet-pi
Fair enough, I never knew that.
I have not read McCain himself say he cannot email because of his war injuries. On the contrary in Times interview he said he was learning how to by overcoming his 'computer illiteracy'. You will note he uses a Blackberry, albeit not his. Surely if you can use a Blackberry you can type?
Q: What websites if any do you look at regularly?
Mr. McCain: Brooke and Mark show me Drudge, obviously, everybody watches, for better or for worse, Drudge. Sometimes I look at Politico. Sometimes RealPolitics, sometimes.
(Mrs. McCain and Ms. Buchanan both interject: “Meagan’s blog!”)
Mr. McCain: Excuse me, Meagan’s blog. And we also look at the blogs from Michael and from you that may not be in the newspaper, that are just part of your blog.
Q: But do you go on line for yourself?
Mr. McCain: They go on for me. I am learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself. I don’t expect to be a great communicator, I don’t expect to set up my own blog, but I am becoming computer literate to the point where I can get the information that I need – including going to my daughter’s blog first, before anything else.
Q: Do you use a blackberry or email?
Mr. McCain: No
Mark Salter: He uses a BlackBerry, just ours.
Mr. McCain: I use the Blackberry, but I don’t e-mail, I’ve never felt the particular need to e-mail. I read e-mails all the time, but the communications that I have with my friends and staff are oral and done with my cell phone. I have the luxury of being in contact with them literally all the time. We now have a phone on the plane that is usable on the plane, so I just never really felt a need to do it. But I do – could I just say, really – I understand the impact of blogs on American politics today and political campaigns. I understand that. And I understand that something appears on one blog, can ricochet all around and get into the evening news, the front page of The New York Times. So, I do pay attention to the blogs. And I am not in any way unappreciative of the impact that they have on entire campaigns and world opinion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/us/politics/13text-mccain.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1221472805-5fSMDGrz7BhxyG+oK2n5og
So, given the above, I do not see the Obama campaign ad offensive or insensitive to McCain's war injuries.
Skybird
09-15-08, 06:14 AM
Blizzard of Lies:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/12/opinion/12krugman.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=krugman&st=cse&oref=slogin
Digital_Trucker
09-15-08, 06:42 AM
You will note he uses a Blackberry, albeit not his. Surely if you can use a Blackberry you can type?
No, not necessarily. First of all, he said he uses a Blackberry, not that he operates it. Reading something that someone else has displayed can be considered using it. You'd have to ask him personally if that's what he meant.
As for being able to type because you can use a blackberry, think about how the majority of people use handheld devices. They "type" with their thumbs while their hands are curled around the device to hold it. If an injury deforms your hand shape such that you are not able to flatten your hands as you do on a keyboard to type, but you can hold an object and press buttons with your thumbs, then you certainly could operate a Blackberry, but not be able to type.
As for the "computer illiteracy", perhaps his use of the term is not the same as the "popular" definition of the term. If one is unable to use the computer in a conventional manner, how does one become literate in the use of the computer?
Finally, to quote something besides the NY Times, I have a friend who is determined to vote for Obama because he is such a good speaker. This person derided me for favoring McCain because "the jerk can't even raise his arms above his shoulders". He wasn't even aware of McCain's injuries. When I asked him about a couple of questions about their respective voting records, he couldn't answer anything about either candidate. People see what they want to see and rarely look any farther.
Computer literacy doesn't make or break a president. Neither does public speaking.
Von Tonner
09-15-08, 07:32 AM
First of all, he said he uses a Blackberry, not that he operates it. Reading something that someone else has displayed can be considered using it. You'd have to ask him personally if that's what he meant.
Well, not been able to ask him personally, I think these two pics pretty much answer the question.
http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa130/shazavaar/cell2.jpg
"McCain works his cell phone in Arlington, Va., checking with staff members on the status of amendments to his campaign finance reform bill"
http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa130/shazavaar/cell-1.jpg
McCain using a cell phone while holding a Blackberry
Tchocky
09-15-08, 07:33 AM
He's not allowed use his cell phone anymore.
Seriously, the campaign had to take it off him.
Digital_Trucker
09-15-08, 07:44 AM
Seriously, using a cell phone is not the same as typing is it? I stand "chastized" on the operation of the cell phone, but I still stand by the statement that operating a cell phone or a Blackberry is not the same as typing on a keyboard.
Tchocky
09-15-08, 07:57 AM
He he he
“We’re not going to spend $3 million of your tax dollars to study the DNA of bears in Montana,” McCain has said during this year’s campaign, referring to a study he’s mocked for years of whether grizzlies need to keep their status as an endangered species.
Palin, meanwhile, has requested $3.2 million to be spent in part researching the “genetics of harbor seals,” in one of the state’s many requests for federal funding of research into Alaska’s fauna.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=4E2E5BFD-18FE-70B2-A815903CFF648F68
EDIT - Same kind of story. Now John McCain is lying about her. Not misspeaking or misremembering, blatantly lying. Whatcha'll think?
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/mccain-somethin.html
From AP - McCain said he had chosen Palin because she would help to reform Washington, specifically cited curbing federal spending for earmarks. When pressed about Palin's record of requesting and accepting such money for Alaska, McCain ignored the record and said, "Not as governor she didn't."
McCain stood by two of his campaign commercials — one which said Obama favored comprehensive sex education for kindergarten students and another that suggested Obama had called Palin a pig. Both are misleading and factually inaccurate.
He he he
“We’re not going to spend $3 million of your tax dollars to study the DNA of bears in Montana,” McCain has said during this year’s campaign, referring to a study he’s mocked for years of whether grizzlies need to keep their status as an endangered species.
Palin, meanwhile, has requested $3.2 million to be spent in part researching the “genetics of harbor seals,” in one of the state’s many requests for federal funding of research into Alaska’s fauna.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=4E2E5BFD-18FE-70B2-A815903CFF648F68
So Palin is the only politician looking out for their flock????
Here's one highlight: Obama sought money for the University of Chicago Hospitals. Wife Michelle works for the University of Chicago Hospitals, appointed in spring 2005 as vice president for community and external affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals. She is now on leave from the job to campaign for her husband. Top campaign adviser and friend Valerie Jarrett is the Chair of the University of Chicago Medical Center Board and also Chair of the Executive Committee of that board. She has also been named Vice-Chair of the University's Board of Trustees. Obama taught at the U. of Chicago law school and the Obama's two daughters attend school there.
Typical Chicago politics.
Obama Requested $1.6 Million To The University Of Illinois College Of ACES For The Livestock Genome Sequencing Initiative. In 2006, Obama requested $1.6 million for the University Of Illinois College Of ACES and its effort to conduct research on the Livestock Genome Sequencing Initiative (LGSI). The LGSI is part of an international effort to identify every gene of the cattle and swine species by both its unique DNA sequence and location on specific chromosomes. In addition, LGSI research is building a database to identify the function of these genes. Mapping and sequencing the cattle and swine genome will provide the basis for future biological research by improving livestock productivity and public health.
Messing with cattle and pig DNA to make them bigger and disease free.
Obama Requested $2 Million For The Soybean Disease Biotechnology Center At The University Of Illinois College Of ACES. In 2006, Obama requested $2 million for the University of Illinois College of ACES and its continuing research efforts at the Soybean Disease Biotechnology Center (SDBC). The SDBC is using scientific advances in structural, comparative and functional genomics and genetic engineering, in order to protect soybean crops from diseases and improve their productivity.
See the above comment.
Obama Requested $2.5 Million For The Illinois Program For Integrated Sustainable Agriculture At The University Of Illinois College Of ACES. In 2006, Obama requested $2.5 million the University of Illinois College of ACES Illinois Program for Integrated Sustainable Agriculture. The Illinois Program for Integrated Sustainable Agriculture will research and develop an integrated livestock and corn-soybean production system which will recycle valuable nutrients from the animal waste stream in an effort to improve agricultural productivity and reduce the emission of livestock wastes into the environment.
2 and 1/2 million to see if cow manure is a good fertilizer....
Obama Requested $2,499,400 For The Food Stamp Participation Project Of The Illinois Department Of Human Services. In 2006, Obama requested $2,499,400 for the Food Stamp Participation project of the Illinois Department of Human Services. The Food Stamp Participation Project is development of new technology projects, which are designed to increase the access to the food stamp program. One is designed for use by the general public and the other is a web based application designed for use in food pantries.
Another 2.5 million to give away freebies easier.
Obama Requested $335,000 For The Chicago Zoological Society Of The Brookfield Zoo To Support Its Excellence Through Diversity Program. In 2006, Obama requested $335,000 for the Chicago Zoological Society of the Brookfield Zoo to support its Excellence Through Diversity program. $335,000 for the The Chicago Zoological Society is recognized throughout the State of Illinois and the country as a leader in promoting biological diversity and providing outstanding recreational and educational opportunities for its two million annual visitors. A newly initiated year-long strategic planning process has set the goal of increasing diversity throughout the Board, staff, volunteers, and guests. Staff diversity is an ongoing challenge for the Chicago Zoological Society, especially in the area of science. This multi-prong program will specifically address this challenge so they can better assist minority students and young professionals in obtaining the skills and training necessary to pursue a career in a zoological setting.
A third of a million for the purpose of setting up a quota system in a zoo. The zoo is not free, it costs 8 dollars to park, 10-5 dollars a head to get in, but they draw 2 million visitors a year. Just not the right racial make ups.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_scoop_obama_after_initia.html
Tchocky
09-15-08, 10:29 AM
Er, yes, but you're totally missing the point. Obama is not running a campaign claiming that earmarks are the grimy evil work of Beelzebub himself.
But John McCain is.
Example - I like the idea of federal money for research and investigation, things like seal DNA and such. John McCain doesn't, and he's campaigning against earmarks. Then he goes and picks a VP who has made egregious use of earmarks. This tells me he either does not believe in this and is just using it to win votes, or he has been reckless and not done any homework before picking his running mate. This does not tell me anything good about his executive/management/decision-making skills.
Whether earmarks are good or bad is irrelevant, I am merely holding candidates to their words. McCain is a hypocrite in this case, or worse.
Frame57
09-15-08, 12:29 PM
Defintion of hypocrisy.
Hillary 2 months ago: "He is not qualified to be in the white house.."
Bill 2 months ago: "He is not qualifed to be president..."
Joe 2 months ago: "He is not qualifed to hold the office..."
Present day they have have all changed their position of this candidate and now claim he is qualified to be president. You are all bickering over cell phones???
I am Frame57, and I approve this message
UnderseaLcpl
09-15-08, 12:47 PM
Does anyone else find it odd that the credibility of candidates is even an issue?
Why should government have enough power that we have to worry if they're lying to us ?
Are the candidates really so alike that we have to resort to name-calling and denouncing their credibility as reasons for not supporting them?
:-?
Sailor Steve
09-15-08, 12:51 PM
Defintion of hypocrisy.
Hillary 2 months ago: "He is not qualified to be in the white house.."
Bill 2 months ago: "He is not qualifed to be president..."
Joe 2 months ago: "He is not qualifed to hold the office..."
Present day they have have all changed their position of this candidate and now claim he is qualified to be president. You are all bickering over cell phones???
I am Frame57, and I approve this message
It's what politicians do, and not just Liberal Democrat politicians. Again you point the finger at the other guy while ignoring your own side. Did you make the same accusations back when George H.W. Bush ran against Ronald Reagan, called his policies "Voodoo Economics", then embraced and defended them when asked to be his running mate? If not, then you should probably be a little more careful about using words like Hipocrisy.
Frame57
09-15-08, 12:57 PM
Defintion of hypocrisy.
Hillary 2 months ago: "He is not qualified to be in the white house.."
Bill 2 months ago: "He is not qualifed to be president..."
Joe 2 months ago: "He is not qualifed to hold the office..."
Present day they have have all changed their position of this candidate and now claim he is qualified to be president. You are all bickering over cell phones???
I am Frame57, and I approve this message
It's what politicians do, and not just Liberal Democrat politicians. Again you point the finger at the other guy while ignoring your own side. Did you make the same accusations back when George H.W. Bush ran against Ronald Reagan, called his policies "Voodoo Economics", then embraced and defended them when asked to be his running mate? If not, then you should probably be a little more careful about using words like Hipocrisy.Big difference between squabbling over policy, and that of someone being qualified to be president, which did not happen then Steven... Besides I am not Hannity and Colmes. You know me Steven, I do not predicate being carelful with words. I mean what i say and say what I mean.
Skybird
09-15-08, 01:00 PM
Does anyone else find it odd that the credibility of candidates is even an issue?
Why should government have enough power that we have to worry if they're lying to us ?
:lol: that is a very original way of looking at things!
UnderseaLcpl
09-15-08, 01:03 PM
Does anyone else find it odd that the credibility of candidates is even an issue?
Why should government have enough power that we have to worry if they're lying to us ?
:lol: that is a very original way of looking at things!
Not really. I heard some guys thought of something like that over 200 years ago.
I wonder if their idea ever worked.:D
Sailor Steve
09-15-08, 01:06 PM
Big difference between squabbling over policy, and that of someone being qualified to be president, which did not happen then Steven... Besides I am not Hannity and Colmes. You know me Steven, I do not predicate being carelful with words. I mean what i say and say what I mean.
Actually they are precisely the same. Both cases involved politicians, not 'squabbling', but doing their best to trash their opponent so they would be the chosen one instead, and then when it became obvious where the chips were falling hurrying to try to be a part of that political gravy train. As I said, it's what politicians do, no matter what the party or the issue.
As to my hardly-veiled accusation of hypocrisy on your part, it's my opinion that you, like others on both sides, have chosen yours and will say anything that smears the other side while staunchly defending your own as 'right', even though both use exactly the same tactics. Why not engage in an honest debate, rather than just throwing mud?
Sailor Steve
09-15-08, 01:07 PM
Does anyone else find it odd that the credibility of candidates is even an issue?
Why should government have enough power that we have to worry if they're lying to us ?
:lol: that is a very original way of looking at things!
Not really. I heard some guys thought of something like that over 200 years ago.
I wonder if their idea ever worked.:D
Maybe, maybe not; but smear tactics as a form of campaigning was a matter of course even for them, even then.
UnderseaLcpl
09-15-08, 01:18 PM
Maybe, maybe not; but smear tactics as a form of campaigning was a matter of course even for them, even then.
Point of argument totally derailed now. Maybe you should be a campaign manager:p
Frame57
09-15-08, 01:19 PM
Big difference between squabbling over policy, and that of someone being qualified to be president, which did not happen then Steven... Besides I am not Hannity and Colmes. You know me Steven, I do not predicate being carelful with words. I mean what i say and say what I mean.
Actually they are precisely the same. Both cases involved politicians, not 'squabbling', but doing their best to trash their opponent so they would be the chosen one instead, and then when it became obvious where the chips were falling hurrying to try to be a part of that political gravy train. As I said, it's what politicians do, no matter what the party or the issue.
As to my hardly-veiled accusation of hypocrisy on your part, it's my opinion that you, like others on both sides, have chosen yours and will say anything that smears the other side while staunchly defending your own as 'right', even though both use exactly the same tactics. Why not engage in an honest debate, rather than just throwing mud?STEVAN! STEVAN! STEVAN! Ouch! I just gave myself a migrane... Dude there is a huge difference! Disagreeing and slamming another candidate is business as usual and sad in that is what people respond to. But to publicy denounce someones ability or qualifications to lead the the Country is altogether a different animal. I have a new dentist that slams my former dentist because of the techniques he uses. They use a different approach, one likes implants, the other bridges... I can relate to that and they are competitors for my business. But neither is stating the other is not qualified to be a dentist, that would be another ball game altogether. Now, seriously, when was your last checkup?:D
Sailor Steve
09-15-08, 01:26 PM
People say what they think they need to to get elected. If your dentist said his predecessor wasn't qualified, he may have meant it sincerely, or he may have just been trying to steal his business.
Are the Dems hypocritical? I agree with you there, no question. I just react strongly to one-sidedness, no matter who practices it.
Last checkup? Dental? Before half the people on this board were born. Medical? Just last week. Psychiatric? Probably not often enough, but those guys scare me.
Frame57
09-15-08, 03:05 PM
Shrinks! Ugh! Had to see one before there was anger management programs. My neighbor used to let his dog do his business in my yard. I nicely asked him to keep his dog off my property. To no avail, I then saved all the dog droppings for about a month and put them in a medium sized garbage bag. I put the bag on the neighbors door knob and tossed an M-80 in it and rang his bell. The Judge decided i should see a shrink for this. The shrink stared at me for what seemed like an hour without saying a word, then asks, "Tell me about your relationship with your Mother...." Only in America...
Whether earmarks are good or bad is irrelevant, I am merely holding candidates to their words. McCain is a hypocrite in this case, or worse.
I was using that to set up my next point:
When Barack Obama and fellow state lawmakers in Illinois tried to expand healthcare coverage in 2003 with the "Health Care Justice Act," they drew fierce opposition from the insurance industry, which saw it as a back-handed attempt to impose a government-run system.
Over the next 15 months, insurers and their lobbyists found a sympathetic ear in Obama, who amended the bill more to their liking partly because of concerns they raised with him and his aides, according to lobbyists, Senate staff, and Obama's remarks on the Senate floor.
The wrangling over the healthcare measure, which narrowly passed and became law in 2004, illustrates how Obama, during his eight years in the Illinois Senate, was able to shepherd major legislation by negotiating competing interests in Springfield, the state capital. But it also shows how Obama's own experience in lawmaking involved dealings with the kinds of lobbyists and special interests he now demonizes on the campaign trail.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/23/in_illinois_obama_dealt_with_lobbyists/
"The people in this stadium need to know who we're going to fight for," Obama said at Soldier Field. "The reason that I'm running for president is because of you, not because of folks who are writing big checks, and that's a clear message that has to be sent, I think, by every candidate."
But behind Obama's campaign rhetoric about taking on special interests lies a more complicated truth. A Globe review of Obama's campaign finance records shows that he collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists and PACs as a state legislator in Illinois, a US senator, and a presidential aspirant.
In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns -- $296,000 of $461,000 -- came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show.
Obama's US Senate campaign committee, starting with his successful run in 2004, has collected $128,000 from lobbyists and $1.3 million from PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics. His $1.3 million from PACs represents 8 percent of what he has raised overall. Clinton's Senate committee, by comparison, has raised $3 million from PACs, 4 percent of her total amount raised, the group said.
Though Obama has returned thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from registered federal lobbyists since he declared his candidacy in February, his presidential campaign has maintained ties with lobbyists and lobbying firms to help raise some of the $58.9 million he collected through the first six months of 2007. Obama has raised more than $1.4 million from members of law and consultancy firms led by partners who are lobbyists, The Los Angeles Times reported last week. And The Hill, a Washington newspaper, reported earlier this year that Obama's campaign had reached out to lobbyists' networks to use their contacts to help build his fund-raising base.
This activity, along with Obama's past contributions from lobbyists and PACs, has drawn fire from opposing campaigns. Some political analysts say Obama, by casting himself as an uncorrupted good-government crusader, has set himself up for charges of hypocrisy.
"If you're running a campaign about credibility, that credibility and persona are so important you better be squeaky clean," said Richard Semiatin, a political scientist at American University. "While he's getting good traction out of this, I think in the long term he's really got to be careful."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/
Again, who is the hypocrite???? :up:
Neptunus Rex
09-15-08, 05:00 PM
Yeah, lets!
Obama's Not Exactlys:
1.) Selma March Got Me Born - NOT EXACTLY, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965. (Google'Obama Selma ' for his full March 4, 2007 speech and articles about its various untruths.)
2.) Father Was A Goat Herder - NOT EXACTLY, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.
3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - NOT EXACTLY, he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had.
4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - NOT EXACTLY, your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya . It is the first widespread violence in decades. The current government is pro-American but Odinga wants to overthrow it and establish Muslim Sharia law. Your half-brother, Abongo Oba ma, is Odinga's follower. You interrupted your &n bsp;New Hampshire campaigning to speak to Odinga on the phone. Check out the following link for verification of that....and for more.
Obama's cousin Odinga in Kenya ran for president and tried to get Sharia muslim law in place there. When Odinga lost the elections, his followers have burned Christians' homes and then burned men, women and children alive in a Christian church where they took shelter.. Obama SUPPORTED his cousin before the election process here started. Google Obama and Odinga and see what you get. No one wants to know the truth.
5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - NOT EXACTLY, she does her daily Salat p ray ers at 5am according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldn't allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.
6.) My Name is African Swahili - NOT EXACTLY, your name is Arabic and 'Baraka' (from which Barack came) means 'blessed' in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.
Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. If elected, he would be the first Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya , his father's family was mainly Arabs... Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro). From....and for more....go to.....
7.) I Never Practiced Islam - NOT EXACTLY, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years, until your wife made you change, so you could run for office.
4-3-08 Article 'Obama was 'quite religious in islam'' http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60559 (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60559)
8.) My School In Indonesia Was Christian - NOT EXACTLY, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check your own book).
February 28, 2008. Kristoff from the New York Times a year ago: Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to p ray er, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it'll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to p ray er as 'one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.' This is just one example of what Pamela is talking about when she says 'Obama's narrative is being altered, enhanced and manipulated to whitewash troubling facts.'
9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - NOT EXACTLY, not one teacher says you could speak the language.
10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia , I Have More Foreign Experience - NOT EXACTLY, you were there from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn't even speak the language. What did you learn except how to study the Koran and watch cartoons.
11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs - NOT EXACTLY, except for Africa (surprise) and the Middle East (bigger surprise), you have never been anywhere else on the planet and thus have NO experience with our closest allies.
12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - NOT EXACTLY, you were quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - your classmates said you were just fine
13.)An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office - NOT EXACTLY, Ebony has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.
14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life - NOT EXACTLY, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.
15.) I Won't Run On A National Ticket In '08 - NOT EXACTLY, here you are, despite saying, live on TV, that you would not have enough experience by then, and you are all about having experience first.
16.) Voting 'Present' is Common In Illinois Senate - NOT EXACTLY, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 NO VOTES.
17.) Oops, I Misvoted - NOT EXACTLY, only when caught by church groups and Democrats, did you beg to change your misvote.
18.) I Was A Professor Of Law - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - NOT EXACTLY, you didn't write it, introduce it, change it or create it.
21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - NOT EXACTLY, it took just 14 days from start to finish.
22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - NOT EXACTLY, your bill was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation - mainly because of your Nuclear donor, Exelon, from which David Axelrod came.
23.) I Have Released My State Records - NOT EXACTLY, as of March, 2008, state bills you sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, exposing all the special interests pork hidden within.
24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess - NOT EXACTLY, you were part of a large group of people who remedied Altgeld Gardens . You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books.
25.) My Economics Bill Will Help America - NOT EXACTLY, your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0, and even YOU voted against your own bill.
26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois - NOT EXACTLY, even your own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part.
27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year - NOT EXACTLY, they were not YOUR bills, but rather handed to you, after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist you in a future bid for higher office.
28.) No One on my campaign contacted Canada about NAFTA - NOT EXACTLY, the Canadian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them.
29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism - NOT EXACTLY, you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction off Israel .
30.) I Want All Votes To Count - NOT EXACTLY, you said let the delegates decide.
31.) I Want Americans To Decide - NOT EXACTLY, you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.
32.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate - NOT EXACTLY, you passed 26, most of which you didn't write yourself.
33.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics - NOT EXACTLY, you used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer from running against you.
34.) I Don't Take PAC Money - NOT EXACTLY, you take loads of it.
35.) I don't Have Lobbysists - NOT EXACTLY, you have over 47 lobbyists, and counting.
36.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad - NOT EXACTLY, your own campaign worker made the ad on his Apple in one afternoon.
37.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq - NOT EXACTLY, you weren't in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time.
38.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care - NOT EXACTLY, your plan leaves us all to pay for the 15,000,000 who don't have to buy it.
39.) My uncle liberated Auschwitz concentration camp - NOT EXACTLY, your mother had no brothers and the Russan army did the liberating.
So, who EXACTLY is this Obama guy and what is he trying to sell us?!
NObama, NObama, NObama!
Sailor Steve
09-15-08, 05:34 PM
:rotfl: Neptunus Rex!
I read the entire article you linked to, and it also had this to say:
Further, at only 6.25% African Negro, would he even be the first President who was part black? Not at all! Our 3rd President, Thomas Jefferson was our first part black President. And he's not alone, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge were also part black.
President Andrew Jackson was the son of an Irish woman who married a black man. Andrew Jackson was such a high percentage black that his oldest brother was sold as a slave!
President Abraham Lincoln was the illegitimate son of an African man, he had very dark skin and coarse hair and his mother also allegedly came from an Ethiopian tribe. His heritage fueled so much controversy that Lincoln was nicknamed "Abraham Africanus the First" by his opponents.
If the rest of the sources for your tirade are as reliable, you might convince me to vote for Obama!
Neptunus Rex
09-15-08, 06:59 PM
Sources? If I had sources, I would be a professional writer.
I just like fanning the flames!;)
A BB is the last place I would post "research".
Tirade! I never throw tirades. That implies emotional attachment to my posts.
Neptunus Rex
09-15-08, 07:11 PM
:rotfl: Neptunus Rex!
If the rest of the sources for your tirade are as reliable, you might convince me to vote for Obama!
Say it ain't so, not for the O. ;)
NObama, NObama, NObama!
Neptunus Rex
09-15-08, 08:48 PM
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.ht m?page=0
Gee, kinda like the Canada fiasco!
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.ht m?page=0
Gee, kinda like the Canada fiasco!
SS need a constitionalist's opinion: could this be a violation of the Logan Act?
Good find NR....huzzah:rock:
Sailor Steve
09-15-08, 10:19 PM
Sources? If I had sources, I would be a professional writer.
I just like fanning the flames!;)
A BB is the last place I would post "research".
Tirade! I never throw tirades. That implies emotional attachment to my posts.
An honest troll?
I like it!:rock:
Frame57
09-20-08, 01:22 PM
:rotfl: Neptunus Rex!
I read the entire article you linked to, and it also had this to say:
Further, at only 6.25% African Negro, would he even be the first President who was part black? Not at all! Our 3rd President, Thomas Jefferson was our first part black President. And he's not alone, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge were also part black.
President Andrew Jackson was the son of an Irish woman who married a black man. Andrew Jackson was such a high percentage black that his oldest brother was sold as a slave!
President Abraham Lincoln was the illegitimate son of an African man, he had very dark skin and coarse hair and his mother also allegedly came from an Ethiopian tribe. His heritage fueled so much controversy that Lincoln was nicknamed "Abraham Africanus the First" by his opponents.
If the rest of the sources for your tirade are as reliable, you might convince me to vote for Obama!Lincoln was a negro?:huh:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.