Front Office Football Central
Page 45 of 111 « First < 35363738394041424344 45 4647484950515253545595 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Front Office Football Central (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//index.php)
-   Off Topic (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Obama versus McCain (versus the rest) (https://forums.operationsports.com/fofc//showthread.php?t=65622)

Buccaneer 09-13-2008 01:44 PM
I guess I should have said "hypothetical" instead of "future". I really don't know if these are a priority or not from the next Congress but I can envision that if the Dems increase its numbers and Obama claims a mandate, the temptation will be there for political special interest favors (e.g., the union voters secure Michigan and Ohio) and revenge (e.g., against the last 8 years).

Big Fo 09-13-2008 02:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by molson (Post 1832294)
hahahahahahaha - coming from you, that's just - hahahahahahahah

By the way, according to wiki, scholars idenitfy 7 different "Bush Doctrines"

Bush Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But seriously, I asked this before. Why do you give a shit? Can you stop scraping the bottom of the barrel for dirt for one friggen day? Do you think you change one person's mind with this constant, irrelevant garbage or is this some version of message board masturbation?

The message to me, like with Kerry, is that an Obama candidacy can't stand on it's own. It needs constant bullshit to support itself.

ace1914 is absolutely right - he's worried McCain will be McSame. Fair point. We can disagree, but it's a legitimate political discussion. This bullshit about bush doctrines and 90% of what you bring to the table just makes me turn my stomach more and more about democrats, even though I agree with them on policies far more than Republicans. You can't even see your own smugness and obnoxiousness.

I've thought this before, but maybe I need to say it to follow through, I gotta get the hell out of this thread. I encourage any other non-robots to do the same, so the Obamaniacs and sit around and have a circle jerk.

Wow, this is even better than your Mercury Morris inspired meltdown in last year's Super Bowl thread.

Election season continues to bring the goods on FOFC. Whether McCain or Obama wins, it's a shame that in November this kind of entertainment will be brought to a close for the next four years.

Flasch186 09-13-2008 03:56 PM
Im not a big fan of Alan Greenspan but it is what it is:

Greenspan: Country can't afford McCain's tax cuts - Yahoo! News

GrantDawg 09-13-2008 04:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA (Post 1832108)
Just wondering ... was that board just off I-75 somewhere around the 120 Loop?

IIRC, there's a building owner with a private billboard/message board there who sometimes puts up political messages/endorsements seemingly of his own accord (as I understand it).


Nope. Downtown McDonough.

Chief Rum 09-13-2008 05:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1832439)
Im not a big fan of Alan Greenspan but it is what it is:

Greenspan: Country can't afford McCain's tax cuts - Yahoo! News

For those who don't click on the link, Greenspan's opinion includes the caveat--"without a corresponding cut in government spending."

Really, I would hope we would have that information in the post, rather than having to go to the link to look for it (at least it's in the first graf).

Flasch186 09-13-2008 05:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Rum (Post 1832500)
For those who don't click on the link, Greenspan's opinion includes the caveat--"without a corresponding cut in government spending."

Really, I would hope we would have that information in the post, rather than having to go to the link to look for it (at least it's in the first graf).

I didnt want to put an opinion on the article and I feel/felt like the long articles that get quoted in here, unfortunately, dont get read by most people. Which may be symbolic of how I feel about American's willingness to do their own research when looking at issues. The title is Yahoo's...i didnt make it.

here's the article though:

Quote:
Greenspan: No McCain tax cuts without reduction

By GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 31 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Alan Greenspan says the country can't afford tax cuts of the magnitude proposed by Republican presidential contender John McCain — at least not without a corresponding reduction in government spending.
ADVERTISEMENT

"Unless we cut spending, no," the former Federal Reserve chairman said Friday when asked about McCain's proposed tax cuts, pegged in some estimates at $3.3 trillion.

"I'm not in favor of financing tax cuts with borrowed money," Greenspan said during an interview with Bloomberg Television. "I always have tied tax cuts to spending."

McCain has said that he would offset his proposed cuts — including reducing the corporate tax rate and eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax that has plagued middle-class families — by ending congressional pork-barrel spending, unnecessary government programs and overhauling entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security.

Democrats pounced on Greenspan's comments, in part because McCain professed last year that he was weaker on economics than foreign affairs and was reading Greenspan's memoir, "The Age of Turbulence," to educate himself.

"Obviously he needs to go back to that book and study it some more," Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said during a conference call arranged by the campaign of Democratic nominee Barack Obama.

McCaskill said eliminating congressional earmark spending — estimated at $17 billion annually — cannot offset McCain's proposed tax cuts.

"That's a huge amount of money, but it's not even a drop in the bucket to pay for $3.5 trillion in tax cuts," she said. "So, every time he throws up earmarks and he's asked how he's going to pay for it, he knows he's being disingenuous, he knows he's not being forthcoming."

McCain campaign officials dispute the $3.3 trillion figure, saying it assumes eliminating 2003 tax cuts made by the Bush administration and then cutting from that higher level. They say McCain is proposing tax cuts worth $600 billion from current levels.

"John McCain opposed President Bush's tax cuts in 2003, because they didn't include the necessary spending controls. Sen. McCain's proposed job-growing tax cuts are modest in comparison to his plans to slow the exploding growth of federal expenditures — meaning that contrary to Chairman Greenspan's assertions, this relief isn't proposed on borrowed money," said McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds.

While McCain opposed the 2003 cuts and previous Bush administration tax cuts from 2001, he now says he would leave them intact. Obama has said he would repeal Bush tax cuts benefiting families making over $250,000 annually to pay for programs and provide middle-tax class relief.

Meanwhile, organizers of a conservative summit in Washington said McCain and his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, missed an opportunity by not addressing the gathering. Some 2,100 activists from 44 states, plus another 10,000 people who signed up to watch online, participated in the three-day Values Voter Summit.

On Saturday, McCain was less than 10 miles away, working in at his campaign headquarters in Arlington, Va. Palin was leaving Alaska and traveling to a rally in Reno, Nev. Last year, McCain and seven other GOP presidential candidates spoke at the summit.

"I think there is some disappointment that he's not here. I think there's greater disappointment that Palin is not here," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a key sponsor of the summit. "I think people would have liked to have heard from her."

Activists attending the summit were unanimous in their enthusiasm for Palin, including several who said their support for McCain was lukewarm before he selected her.

Gary Ward, pastor of the Rocky Point Church in Stephenville, Texas, said he supported former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee for the GOP nomination but that his enthusiasm for McCain has been increased by his choice of Palin and his recent statement that he believes life begins at conception.

"That was absolutely the right answer," Ward said.

Elizabeth Kish, an administrative assistant from Gainesville, Fla., said she was put off by McCain's record on immigration and was considering voting for Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr until Palin's selection.

"Once he chose Palin that was it for me," said Kish, who was wearing a "Pro-Life Pro-Palin" button and another button featuring pictures of Chief Justice John Roberts and Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito under the slogan, "The Kind of Change I Believe In."

Chief Rum 09-13-2008 05:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1832520)
I didnt want to put an opinion on the article and I feel/felt like the long articles that get quoted in here, unfortunately, dont get read by most people. Which may be symbolic of how I feel about American's willingness to do their own research when looking at issues. The title is Yahoo's...i didnt make it.

here's the article though:

[quteGreenspan: No McCain tax cuts without reduction

By GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 31 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Alan Greenspan says the country can't afford tax cuts of the magnitude proposed by Republican presidential contender John McCain — at least not without a corresponding reduction in government spending.
ADVERTISEMENT

"Unless we cut spending, no," the former Federal Reserve chairman said Friday when asked about McCain's proposed tax cuts, pegged in some estimates at $3.3 trillion.

"I'm not in favor of financing tax cuts with borrowed money," Greenspan said during an interview with Bloomberg Television. "I always have tied tax cuts to spending."

McCain has said that he would offset his proposed cuts — including reducing the corporate tax rate and eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax that has plagued middle-class families — by ending congressional pork-barrel spending, unnecessary government programs and overhauling entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security.

Democrats pounced on Greenspan's comments, in part because McCain professed last year that he was weaker on economics than foreign affairs and was reading Greenspan's memoir, "The Age of Turbulence," to educate himself.

"Obviously he needs to go back to that book and study it some more," Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said during a conference call arranged by the campaign of Democratic nominee Barack Obama.

McCaskill said eliminating congressional earmark spending — estimated at $17 billion annually — cannot offset McCain's proposed tax cuts.

"That's a huge amount of money, but it's not even a drop in the bucket to pay for $3.5 trillion in tax cuts," she said. "So, every time he throws up earmarks and he's asked how he's going to pay for it, he knows he's being disingenuous, he knows he's not being forthcoming."

McCain campaign officials dispute the $3.3 trillion figure, saying it assumes eliminating 2003 tax cuts made by the Bush administration and then cutting from that higher level. They say McCain is proposing tax cuts worth $600 billion from current levels.

"John McCain opposed President Bush's tax cuts in 2003, because they didn't include the necessary spending controls. Sen. McCain's proposed job-growing tax cuts are modest in comparison to his plans to slow the exploding growth of federal expenditures — meaning that contrary to Chairman Greenspan's assertions, this relief isn't proposed on borrowed money," said McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds.

While McCain opposed the 2003 cuts and previous Bush administration tax cuts from 2001, he now says he would leave them intact. Obama has said he would repeal Bush tax cuts benefiting families making over $250,000 annually to pay for programs and provide middle-tax class relief.

Meanwhile, organizers of a conservative summit in Washington said McCain and his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, missed an opportunity by not addressing the gathering. Some 2,100 activists from 44 states, plus another 10,000 people who signed up to watch online, participated in the three-day Values Voter Summit.

On Saturday, McCain was less than 10 miles away, working in at his campaign headquarters in Arlington, Va. Palin was leaving Alaska and traveling to a rally in Reno, Nev. Last year, McCain and seven other GOP presidential candidates spoke at the summit.

"I think there is some disappointment that he's not here. I think there's greater disappointment that Palin is not here," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a key sponsor of the summit. "I think people would have liked to have heard from her."

Activists attending the summit were unanimous in their enthusiasm for Palin, including several who said their support for McCain was lukewarm before he selected her.

Gary Ward, pastor of the Rocky Point Church in Stephenville, Texas, said he supported former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee for the GOP nomination but that his enthusiasm for McCain has been increased by his choice of Palin and his recent statement that he believes life begins at conception.

"That was absolutely the right answer," Ward said.

Elizabeth Kish, an administrative assistant from Gainesville, Fla., said she was put off by McCain's record on immigration and was considering voting for Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr until Palin's selection.

"Once he chose Palin that was it for me," said Kish, who was wearing a "Pro-Life Pro-Palin" button and another button featuring pictures of Chief Justice John Roberts and Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito under the slogan, "The Kind of Change I Believe In."
[/quote]

But you read the article yourself right? So you knew that was in there. You profess to believe that people don't read long articles (I agree), and I would even go further to say they rarely read average length articles or click on the link. They probably read the headline posted and that is it.

Given all that, you chose to not include that information? It doesn't come off as nearly so strong a criticism of McCain in your post if you include it.

But at least now you have put up the article in the post, so good move there.

Flasch186 09-13-2008 05:45 PM
I wasnt praising or criticizing even after reading it. Just simply posting ALL the info i find pro or con. Now some could say I dont find an equal amount because I dont frequent ANY blogs and generally find myself on Yahoo news or CNN so I guess any arguments there would be true. the only criticism I have, of the article above is whether or not Greenspan has any credibility to say anything to anyone about the system. The rest people can read on their own BUT...

People dont read the long articles and if I clip out stuff to suit my liking Ill get blasted by one side or the other.

Flasch186 09-13-2008 05:49 PM
this is just coming out so bear with me while I roll it out:

Palin never in Iraq, campaign now says...

So Chief this will be a test, cuz it's a really long article but Im going to post the WHOLE thing

Quote:
Originally Posted by CNN Article
(CNN) -- Sarah Palin did not visit troops in Iraq, a spokesperson for the Republican vice presidential nominee confirmed Saturday, as new details emerged about the extent of the Alaska governor's foreign travel.
Gov. Sarah Palin's aide confirmed to CNN details of her foreign travel Saturday.

In July of last year, Palin left North America for the first time to visit Alaskan troops stationed in Kuwait. Palin officials originally said her itinerary included U.S. military installations or outposts in Germany and Kuwait, and that she had visited Ireland.

A Palin aide in Alaska said Iraq was also one of the stops on that trip.

The Boston Globe reported Saturday that Palin visited the Iraqi side of a border crossing -- but never journeyed past the checkpoint. Earlier, campaign aides confirmed reports that Palin's time in Ireland on that trip had actually been a refueling stop.

The Obama campaign -- which has increasingly accused the McCain campaign of deliberately lying in ads and on the stump -- was quick to highlight that story, along with a news report that explored whether the McCain campaign has been sending out wildly inflated crowd estimates.

The McCain team has twice pointed to law enforcement as the source for those estimates -- but the same officials denied to Bloomberg News that they had provided the numbers cited by the Republican nominee's campaign.

"The McCain campaign said Gov. Palin opposed the bridge to nowhere, but now we know she supported it," said Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor in a statement. "They said she didn't seek earmarks, but now we know she hired a lobbyist to get millions in pork for her town and her state. They said she visited Iraq, but today we learned that she only stopped at the border. Americans are starting to wonder, is there anything the McCain campaign isn't lying about?"

A Palin spokesperson also confirmed that the governor had visited Mexico on a personal vacation. She has also visited Canada.

The Palin revelations Saturday are the latest in a series of barbs between the two presidential campaigns.

McCain, appearing Friday on ABC's "The View," was aggressively pressed on Palin's qualifications to be vice president as well as his new campaign ads that several independent fact-check groups have called misleading.

Co-host Barbara Walters asked about Palin's reformist credentials, noting McCain has served in Washington for more than two decades and asking repeatedly, "Who's she going to reform, you?"

McCain answered by saying Democrats have controlled Congress for two years, but then Walters quickly interrupted: "But tell me who she is going to reform -- we aren't talking about the economy, we're not talking about housing; she was chosen to reform, who is she going to reform?"

Appearing somewhat frustrated, McCain said, "The Democrat Party, the Republican Party, even an independent. She'll reform all of Washington."

Walters, seeming somewhat exasperated, asked, "How? What will she do? What is she going to reform specifically, senator?"

McCain said Palin had a strong record on vetoing earmark spending. Video Watch more of McCain's appearance on "The View" »

"The fact is she was a reform governor, she took on an incumbent governor of her own party and defeated him. She sold the airplane and fired the chef," McCain said, referring to Palin's efforts to put her predecessor's state jet up for auction on eBay and her dismissal of the governor's personal chef.

"She sold the airplane at a loss," Walters interrupted.

(The jet failed to draw sufficient bids on eBay and later was sold at a loss through an ordinary aircraft brokerage.)

Also on Friday, both campaigns accused each other of engaging in lies, unfair attacks and gutter politics in a series of television ads and memos.

McCain's campaign released a television ad, titled "Disrespectful," that accuses McCain's Democratic rival of launching desperate attacks and smears against Palin.

In the McCain ad, the announcer says the Obama camp had "lashed out at Sarah Palin" and dismissed Palin as "good-looking" as the Democratic nominee's face appears on the screen. The announcer also says the Democrats had said Palin was doing "what she was told" and had "desperately" called her a liar.

"How disrespectful," the announcer says. "And how Gov. Sarah Palin proves them wrong, every day."

Obama never made any of the statements the McCain camp released to support the ad, and the comment that Palin was "good-looking" was made by the Democratic vice presidential nominee, Sen. Joe Biden, in a self-deprecating joke when he was asked what the obvious differences were between the two vice presidential nominees. Video Watch the McCain ad »

Biden repeatedly has said on the campaign trail that he respected Palin and that he thought she was qualified for the vice presidency.

FactCheck.org pointed out the quote from an Obama adviser that Palin was doing "what she was told" was taken out of context. The quote is taken from the response of Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, in which he said Palin had misrepresented Obama's legislative record. "Maybe that's what she was told" about his voting record, Axelrod said.

The Obama campaign, meanwhile, launched two television ads Friday. In one, the campaign paints McCain as being out of touch by showing pictures of him when he first entered the Senate in 1982 as disco music plays. The ad also highlights McCain's own admissions that he lacks computer skills and does not use e-mail. Video Watch the Obama ad attacking McCain »
advertisement

In the second Obama ad, the candidate himself appears. "We've heard a lot of talk about change this year. The question is, change to what?" Obama asks.

The ads come as Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, issued a tough memo to reporters that accused McCain and his campaign of turning to "smears, lies and cynical attempts to distract from the issues."


Now THIS pisses me off, the article from Greenspan does not. Lying should not be allowed!!! This will be my opinionated post...because the innuendo, the "sale" of this crap to us, is not right!!

Buccaneer 09-13-2008 05:53 PM
Why wouldn't they have highlighted that part since that certainly is the biggest conditional factor there is? Everything (economically in regards to the federal govt) hinges upon reductions in government spendings, as many have been saying for years. Maybe that counters the prevailing trend in the campaigns and in the actions of Congressional legislation?

Chief Rum 09-13-2008 05:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1832530)
I wasnt praising or criticizing even after reading it. Just simply posting ALL the info i find pro or con. Now some could say I dont find an equal amount because I dont frequent ANY blogs and generally find myself on Yahoo news or CNN so I guess any arguments there would be true. the only criticism I have, of the article above is whether or not Greenspan has any credibility to say anything to anyone about the system. The rest people can read on their own BUT...

People dont read the long articles and if I clip out stuff to suit my liking Ill get blasted by one side or the other.

The goal is to be blasted by both. That way, you can rest easy knowing you did your best to be fair and balanced.

Flasch186 09-13-2008 06:00 PM
This is from a Pro-McCain blog (which I dont read blogs so I did a search on Google and it took me to this one):

Palin Has Visited Iraq War Theater; Visited Wounded Troops in Germany -- Unlike Obama | BLOGS FOR JOHN McCAIN

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blog
It turns out GOP VP Nominee-to-be Sarah Palin has been to the Iraq Theater of Operations. She made a trip to Kuwait to visit Alaskan National Guard Troops serving there in July 2007.

She also has been to Landstuhl, Germany to visit wounded soldiers - unlike the decision of Barack Obama on his overseas trip to skip a visit to wounded soldiers since he could not make a media event out of it. Do I hear a new McCain-Palin ad coming?


Looks like Sarah Palin's Foreign Policy experience is more than a match for Barack Obama.

this is a HUGE deal to me...not whether or not she went but the fact that they made such a big deal about it and now it comes out to be far from the actual truth.

Flasch186 09-13-2008 06:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buccaneer (Post 1832536)
Why wouldn't they have highlighted that part since that certainly is the biggest conditional factor there is? Everything (economically in regards to the federal govt) hinges upon reductions in government spendings, as many have been saying for years. Maybe that counters the prevailing trend in the campaigns and in the actions of Congressional legislation?

Because I think the whole article loses credibility when it hinges on Greenspan. I think he blew it and lost credibility with me so him talking bad about any camp or any qualifications is garbage...to me.

Chief Rum 09-13-2008 06:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1832532)
this is just coming out so bear with me while I roll it out:

Palin never in Iraq, campaign now says...

So Chief this will be a test, cuz it's a really long article but Im going to post the WHOLE thing




Now THIS pisses me off, the article from Greenspan does not. Lying should not be allowed!!! This will be my opinionated post...because the innuendo, the "sale" of this crap to us, is not right!!

You're right. We have never been lied to before by politicians.

No, I don't like dishonesty either, but I find it hard to get up much gumption about politicians being misleading and straight dishonest during a campaign. If there was a way to keep them honest, I would certainly be for it, but there isn't it. Certainly, Obama and the Dems aren't honest either.

It's the actions while in office that piss me off, the stuff that actually hurts people.

Chief Rum 09-13-2008 06:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1832541)
Because I think the whole article loses credibility when it hinges on Greenspan. I think he blew it and lost credibility with me so him talking bad about any camp or any qualifications is garbage...to me.

If Greenspan's opinion means so little to you, why post it?

Flasch186 09-13-2008 06:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Rum (Post 1832542)
You're right. We have never been lied to before by politicians.

No, I don't like dishonesty either, but I find it hard to get up much gumption about politicians being misleading and straight dishonest during a campaign. If there was a way to keep them honest, I would certainly be for it, but there isn't it. Certainly, Obama and the Dems aren't honest either.

It's the actions while in office that piss me off, the stuff that actually hurts people.

hmmm, not me. Any lying pisses me off.

Flasch186 09-13-2008 06:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Rum (Post 1832544)
If Greenspan's opinion means so little to you, why post it?

to post ALL....like I said, Im sorry if that was a mistake but it was an article nonetheless, from what I consider to be a credible newssource, and people may think differently of the people in the article. Not everyone has to think like me but I think we're in the mess we are in now because of Greenspan (plus other things).

Chief Rum 09-13-2008 06:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1832545)
hmmm, not me. Any lying pisses me off.

I wish I could live in your ideal world. I would be a much happier person. Unfortunately, the real world tends to slap people like this up something harsh.

For your heart, I advise you to stay the course. For your health and long term personal benefit, I strongly urge a more pragmatic approach.

Flasch186 09-13-2008 06:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Rum (Post 1832547)
I wish I could live in your ideal world. I would be a much happier person. Unfortunately, the real world tends to slap people like this up something harsh.

For your heart, I advise you to stay the course. For your health and long term personal benefit, I strongly urge a more pragmatic approach.

you are 100% correct. It is a problem for me. It causes my anxiety to go through the roof. It has led my wife to make commentary about my longevity. It absolutely raises my stress level to levels most people dont run 'average' on. I just have a hard time accepting it while others seem to be able to be more pragmatic about it. I dont know if you were trying to be sarcastic or slap me, but in essence, youre right.

This Palin Iraq trip thing is going to effect my whole night.

Chief Rum 09-13-2008 06:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1832546)
to post ALL....like I said, Im sorry if that was a mistake but it was an article nonetheless, from what I consider to be a credible newssource, and people may think differently of the people in the article. Not everyone has to think like me but I think we're in the mess we are in now because of Greenspan (plus other things).

But there are so many more articles out there that you could post. Why do you choose that one? Why do you always choose ones that criticize Republicans, for instance, but you don't seem to post much against the Dems? You're clearly applying your own bias in choosing what to post, but you're trying to hide behind some white knight objective virtue of providing all information for all.

Really, why try to hide your bias? To do so is as dishonest on its own scale as what the Repubs have done in their campaign (fortunately, you're only talking to us).

It's when I see such clear bias, and then you post articles and don't provide the whoel picture and then you backpedal from the article like a politician, that I get disgusted. Let the politicians be dirty. You're no doubt in most things, a good, earnest hard-working man with a steadfast set of beliefs--don't throw them away to earn points on a message board.

Flasch186 09-13-2008 06:12 PM
on this youre wrong. Youll notice almost all my articles simply come from 2 places, Yahoo or CNN. It is what it is. When they post an article showing lying amongst the dems Ill be sure to hammer them too.

Actually in thinking about it...I almost always have posted full articles, to the detriment of getting my point across, since most people skip the long ones, while others clip out their stuff to prove their point.

Chief Rum 09-13-2008 06:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1832549)
you are 100% correct. It is a problem for me. It causes my anxiety to go through the roof. It has led my wife to make commentary about my longevity. It absolutely raises my stress level to levels most people dont run 'average' on. I just have a hard time accepting it while others seem to be able to be more pragmatic about it. I dont know if you were trying to be sarcastic or slap me, but in essence, youre right.

This Palin Iraq trip thing is going to effect my whole night.

No, I offered that up earnestly. I don't wish ill on anyone, no matter how we may disagree. I certainly hope you choose the path in life that leads to the highest fullfillment of your potential happiness. I am just expressing my doubt that an idealist approach will lead you to that path. It's an admirable approach that takes courage, but there is an element of fantasy to it, too. That's really not a comment on you, but on the world in which you live. The world sucks.

Flasch186 09-13-2008 06:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Rum (Post 1832554)
No, I offered that up earnestly. I don't wish ill on anyone, no matter how we may disagree. I certainly hope you choose the path in life that leads to the highest fullfillment of your potential happiness. I am just expressing my doubt that an idealist approach will lead you to that path. It's an admirable approach that takes courage, but there is an element of fantasy to it, too. That's really not a comment on you, but on the world in which you live. The world sucks.

On that post of yours, you know me and my troubles better than you think.

Chief Rum 09-13-2008 06:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1832552)
on this youre wrong. Youll notice almost all my articles simply come from 2 places, Yahoo or CNN. It is what it is. When they post an article showing lying amongst the dems Ill be sure to hammer them too.

I haven't done any statistcal analysis of your posts, so you may very well be right. And it's not about the source, but the choice of articles (and, occasionally, the choice of explanation in the post, such as with the Greenspan article).

That said, my compeltely unscientific impression says you lean far to the left, and your article posting is much the same. I have a feeling a few other board members would agree with me.

Chief Rum 09-13-2008 06:17 PM
BTW, this is a focus on you, but that's not fair to you. There are far, far more people here who wouldn't know fair and balanced if it came up and kicked them in the ass, and your attempt to do so is a far cry further than they ever bother to go. So for that, you should be commended, even if I decry the results.

Buccaneer 09-13-2008 06:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Rum (Post 1832558)
I have a feeling a few other board members would agree with me.

Except that I never thought he had ever hid his bias.

JPhillips 09-13-2008 06:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Rum (Post 1832554)
No, I offered that up earnestly. I don't wish ill on anyone, no matter how we may disagree. I certainly hope you choose the path in life that leads to the highest fullfillment of your potential happiness. I am just expressing my doubt that an idealist approach will lead you to that path. It's an admirable approach that takes courage, but there is an element of fantasy to it, too. That's really not a comment on you, but on the world in which you live. The world sucks.

Perhaps you should reexamine your choice of signature. ;)

Flasch186 09-13-2008 06:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Rum (Post 1832558)
I haven't done any statistcal analysis of your posts, so you may very well be right. And it's not about the source, but the choice of articles (and, occasionally, the choice of explanation in the post, such as with the Greenspan article).

That said, my compeltely unscientific impression says you lean far to the left, and your article posting is much the same. I have a feeling a few other board members would agree with me.

I do lean left but not far left and actually somewhat understand the idea of less government, and could see it being beneficial. Not sure how we get there thougha nd I know that our deficit is crying to be fixed. I dont see how to do that with less int he form of taxes. When it comes to socially I lean left but not to the legalizing drugs sort of stuff.

Is it possible that most of the articles I see on CNN and Yahoo news have shown the GOP lying more? Is it possible that they are lying more? I would love to post some stuff showing Obama lying so when i find it I will, but I gotta tell ya, it's not easy to find right now...at least not as easy as the GOP Palin stuff (which the GOP will argue because of the media bias)

I just dont go to Fox and i dont go to Blogs of any kind, either side. (I actually dont get blogging in general). Over the last 8 years of W in office and this campaign I can see how they would view me as a lefty, no doubt, but I think almost every neutral person in the room would argue that Ari Fleischer, mclellen, W, Cheney, and the admin has been caught in an ungodly amount of lying over the long while and now we have some coming out too on the GOP front. What can I do?

and I appreciate your backhanded compliment :)

On the topic at hand, is anyone else pissed about Palin NOT going to Iraq after that was a cornerstone of the equivalency between she and Obama's trips?

Flasch186 09-13-2008 06:26 PM
BTW the idea of less government and less spending, falls on hollow ground with the GOP eventhough its their mantra (not saying the left get to claim it either) because theyve done neither when in command but that's probably for another thread at another time.

Buccaneer 09-13-2008 06:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1832570)
BTW the idea of less government and less spending, falls on hollow ground with the GOP eventhough its their mantra (not saying the left get to claim it either) because theyve done neither when in command but that's probably for another thread at another time.

That is absolutely true, which is why one should not support either party and in the least, vote for a split-party government.

sabotai 09-13-2008 07:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1832570)
BTW the idea of less government and less spending, falls on hollow ground with the GOP

Certainly true. The idea that fiscal conservatism is a part of the GOP agenda is a total myth.

Flasch186 09-13-2008 07:53 PM
The candidates seem to be on the same page as eachother and in all honesty I wish I could or knew the right answer to this situation. On the one hand I feel like were on the edge of a massive financial meltdown and on the other I hope that we're just hitting a soft reset button and should be alright in a little while. Should Lehman be bailed out? I dont know but I definitely feel sorry for the people who may have some power to wield that could affect this because theyre damned if they do, and damned if they dont.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080913/...ue_politics_dc

Quote:
Obama and McCain favor private solution to Lehman woes

Sat Sep 13, 2:12 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain favor a private solution to Lehman Brothers' current problems and believe a taxpayer bailout should be avoided, senior economic advisers to both men said on Saturday.

Speaking to reporters during a teleconference, Jason Furman, an aide to Democratic nominee Obama, was asked whether the candidate would support a government bailout of Lehman.

Furman responded: "Senator Obama believes we should have a private solution to Lehman's problem. And, unlike Bear Stearns, the Federal Reserve now has a special lending facility in place that could prevent a wider run on the market."

A top adviser to Republican nominee McCain said using taxpayer funds should be avoided.

"I have not heard of any proposal for taxpayer money (to be used) ... and obviously that would be something that is not anyone's first choice," Douglas Holtz-Eakin told Reuters.

"What's going on is a private-sector transaction and that's, you know, that's fine."

Holtz-Eakin said regulators should be ready to act if approval of the sale of Lehman assets were required.

"To the best of our understanding, Lehman is trying to arrange for a sale of some or all of its assets as part of solving what could be some financial distresses," he said.

"That's a private matter. One would hope that regulators are, you know, examining the books so they can approve any sale if necessary."

The Obama campaign also said Lehman's problems were a reminder of the need to modernize U.S. financial regulations.

Obama, Furman said, "fundamentally thinks this is a real reminder of the bad decisions made both on Wall Street and Washington and the need to modernize our financial regulatory structure to prevent these types of problems."

Meetings resumed on Saturday between top government officials and the heads of Wall Street investment banks over Lehman's future, according to a Federal Reserve official.

Government agencies and bankers are trying to find a way to rescue Lehman and stabilize financial markets.

sterlingice 09-13-2008 07:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buccaneer (Post 1832536)
Why wouldn't they have highlighted that part since that certainly is the biggest conditional factor there is? Everything (economically in regards to the federal govt) hinges upon reductions in government spendings, as many have been saying for years. Maybe that counters the prevailing trend in the campaigns and in the actions of Congressional legislation?

I'm going to go with "because history is against it". Reagan was awful at controlling the budget as were both Bushes. So, promising tax cuts as a bribe to the electorate usually results in better votes. The eliminating spending part has never happened so why should we expect things to change?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buccaneer (Post 1832580)
That is absolutely true, which is why one should not support either party and in the least, vote for a split-party government.

I never saw you advocating for Kerry in 2004 and the best our budget has been in the last 30 years was with a Democrat in the White House and Republican Congress. Why the change of tune now?

SI

Buccaneer 09-13-2008 09:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 1832621)
I never saw you advocating for Kerry in 2004 and the best our budget has been in the last 30 years was with a Democrat in the White House and Republican Congress. Why the change of tune now?

SI


That has been answered twice now.

Quote:
Congress was awful at controlling the budget.

Fixed that for you. All budgets were "DOA" from the opposition President, as well as from their own president to some extent. Have you ever seen Congress passed less than what the Presidents have proposed? With Presidents not having the balls to veto (lest their approval ratings go down), Congress can and have run away with spending. They best thing they can do is pass tax cuts if they take in a surplus.

All Congress (and Presidents, if you think they have something to do with it) can hope for is another private sector technology boom so that they can pass enormous un-Constitutional legislations without feeling completely guilty.

Flasch186 09-13-2008 09:51 PM
Watching CNN's revealed on Joe biden and god damnit does his support of the new Bankruptcy bill piss me off. Truly hurts the middle class and right as the economy was on the precipice of imploding. Talk about crappy timing.

ISiddiqui 09-13-2008 10:17 PM
Wait... since when has Palin made a big deal about visiting troops IN Iraq? All I had heard was that she visited Iraqi troops in Kuwait.

Flasch186 09-13-2008 10:24 PM
i posted a link to just one of the blogs touting it, Ill find the insinuation since you doubt it apparently from your tone.

just starting but...

Quote:
By Anne E. Kornblut
RENO, Nev. -- Aides to Gov. Sarah Palin spent Saturday scrambling to explain details of her only trip outside North America in the wake of a report that that trip did not include travel into Iraq, as the McCain-Palin campaign had initially claimed.

Really? I didnt hear their speeches where she said she went to Kuwait to visit...I always heard that they insinuated she visited Iraq and therefore had foreign policy experience. Honestly, the thought is that they didnt intend on having people think that? wow.

New Palin Problem: Report Says She Did Not Visit Iraq As Claimed

Quote:
Win or lose, Republican Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain is now facing a problem: most politicians develop credibility gaps when they get IN power and he is now developing a major one before he gets into the White House. As The Washington Post’s The Trail notes, there is a new report that Vice Presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin didn’t visit Iraq as claimed — and it’s going to add to a developing negative campaign narrative.

Aides to Gov. Sarah Palin are scrambling to explain details of her only trip outside North America — which, according to a new report, did not include Iraq, as the McCain-Palin campaign had initially claimed.

Palin made an official visit to see Alaskan troops in Kuwait in July of 2007. There, she made a stop at a border crossing with Iraq, but did not actually visit the country, according to a new report in the Boston Globe.

Earlier, McCain aides had said that Palin visited Iraq, and expressed indignation at questions about her slim foreign travel.

The campaign also said she had been to Ireland; that turned out to have been a refueling stop.

In her ABC interview, Palin said she had also been to Canada and to Mexico, where her advisers said she went on vacation.

This will boil down to whether the Globe report can be shot down by the McCain camp in terms of accuracy. At this writing, the news story that Palin’s claim was not totally true stands.

spin away but i believe this is a lie....

Palin campaign modifies Iraq visit claim - UPI.com

Quote:
WASHINGTON, Sept. 13 (UPI) -- Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's campaign Saturday softened its claim that she traveled to Iraq in 2007, The Boston Globe reported Saturday.

Palin's Iraq visit was limited to a brief stop at a border crossing between Iraq and Kuwait, the campaign said Friday. Palin aides had said last month she traveled to Iraq, Kuwait, Germany and Ireland -- with a visit to a "military outpost" inside Iraq.
...Ireland's stop was to refuel BTW.

Just in case this is on Fox News

Palin to Iraq: Did She or Didn’t She? « FOX Embeds « FOXNews.com

Quote:
Palin to Iraq: Did She or Didn’t She?
by Shushannah Walshe

In response to a Boston Globe article today, the Palin camp has been forced to clarify exactly where Sarah Palin traveled in her July 2007 trip to the Middle East to visit Alaskan National Guard troops

Previously the campaign said she had traveled to Iraq to visit Alaskan soldiers, but the Globe reported today that it was just a border crossing between Kuwait and Iraq.

From the CNN article, which leads me to believe that if they come out and say the aide was mistaken they could wash their hands of it but I doubt they'll take that tact:

Quote:
Originally Posted by CNN Article
A Palin aide in Alaska had said Iraq was also one of the military stops on that trip.

Sarah Palin Never Visited Troops in Iraq, Contrary to Campaign's Claim

Quote:
Sarah Palin Never Visited Troops in Iraq, Contrary to Campaign's Claim


Aides to Sarah Palin have admitted that their statement that Palin has visited American troops at a military outpost in the Iraq battle zone is false. Palin visited Kuwait last year, but never set foot in Iraq.

The McCain/Palin campaign corrected another of its own statements last week about Palin's "trip of a lifetime." Originally saying she'd visited Ireland on the trip, the campaign has since admitted that it was only a layover to refuel.

Speaking of her experience with other countries, Palin told ABC News recently that she had visited Canada and Mexico. Her campaign has confirmed the visit to Canada, and said that she went to Mexico for a vacation.

I have seen the talking point thrown about that she, herself, never ssaid the words about Iraq but her campaign did....so I guess you could use this opportunity to defend her by sayingyou can only take her words exactly. But that would cause problems with other statements, like the 'Iraq war for god' stuff since she explained to Charlie Gibson that she meant something a little different by that, etc. Very slippery slope for any politician.

From MSNBC:

Quote:
Answer contradicts newspaper report
That answer appears to contradict one provided to The Boston Globe, which reported Saturday that McCain-Palin aides had twice revised their description of Palin's visit to Iraq.

The newspaper said unnamed aides initially explained that Palin had visited a "military outpost" inside Iraq. The Globe said campaign aides and members of the Alaska National Guard subsequently explained that she did not venture beyond the Iraq/Kuwait border when she visited the Khabari Alawazem Crossing on July 25, 2007.

Lt. Col. Dave Osborn, commander of the 3d Battalion, 207th Infantry of the Alaska National Guard, who was in charge of the 570 local troops serving in Kuwait and Iraq, said Palin did not cross in Iraq.

"You have to have permission to go into a lot of areas, and (the crossing) is where her permissions were," Osborn told the newspaper during a telephone interview Friday.

Flasch186 09-13-2008 10:46 PM
DOLA, so everyone in the world is wrong about this I?

ISiddiqui 09-13-2008 10:48 PM
Well they all mention aides said X... nothing about the candidate herself saying she was in Iraq.

Flasch186 09-13-2008 10:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 1832761)
Well they all mention aides said X... nothing about the candidate herself saying she was in Iraq.

Slippery slope, wanna start digging up her quotes and other people's quotes to hold them to exactness? Both camps will hate that world I'd think.

ISiddiqui 09-13-2008 10:52 PM
We already live in that world.

flere-imsaho 09-13-2008 10:56 PM
The problem, as I see it, with the "Palin not actually having gone to Iraq" thing, is that it's another example of a blatant lie, or at least stating that something's 100% true ("she visited troops in Iraq") when it is, in fact, 1% true ("she visited troops in Kuwait who had been in Iraq').

It's the same thing with the "she has foreign policy experience because Alaska is next to Russia" thing. Yes, Alaska is next to Russia. No, it's not very likely that she ever dealt with Russia itself as that part of Russia (and the U.S., for that matter) is almost completely uninhabited and Moscow is 4000 miles and 8 time zones away.


I view this differently from "lies", say, about taxation. McCain may say, for instance, that he'll cut taxes overall. Well, if you look at overall taxation in dollar amounts, that's true, although if you look at it on a "# of taxpayers affected", it's probably not true. It's a fungible point, as are a lot of policy issues. There's context there and people see things through a different lens.

But that's not what these lies about Palin's trip to Iraq (didn't happen) and Ireland (stopped to refuel), her "foreign policy experience", the "bridge to nowhere", her lobbying for earmarks, her former opposition and now support of stem cell research, etc... are. These are simply blatant mistruths, and it's insulting to the intelligence of the average American voter. Of course, it's possible the McCain campaign is just that cynical (and may be correct), and given Steve Schmidt's leadership that's pretty likely, but it's still very, very disappointing.

Flasch186 09-13-2008 11:04 PM
the funniest part (but pisses me off) is it's such a silly and unnecessary spin.

st.cronin 09-13-2008 11:05 PM
I think most voters don't care at all if Palin or Biden has been to Ireland or Iraq or Madagascar. Well, lets put it this way: The voters who haven't made up their mind already about Palin are not likely to be moved by this.

Flasch186 09-13-2008 11:08 PM
your post may be very true as I seem to be extra sensitive to accuracy. So my fire may not represent the average voter at all.

fantom1979 09-13-2008 11:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1832777)
the funniest part (but pisses me off) is it's such a silly and unnecessary spin.

This is exactly the point. If they would have come out at the beginning and said that she has visited troops in Kuwait, I really don't think anyone would have cared.

I view it the same way with the bridge to nowhere. If she would have come out and said," I was the Governor of Alaska. Isn't it my job to get every dollar I can for the state I run." I would have fully supported that and the story would be over.

Just seems like silly spin on stories that no one would have cared about if they would have just come out and told the honest truth.

Glengoyne 09-14-2008 12:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fantom1979 (Post 1832802)
This is exactly the point. If they would have come out at the beginning and said that she has visited troops in Kuwait, I really don't think anyone would have cared.
...

Just seems like silly spin on stories that no one would have cared about if they would have just come out and told the honest truth.

Is this even spin? If somebody associated to the campaign mis-speaks, does it automatically mean they did so intentionally? I mean this isn't even too tough to debunk. I saw in Newsweek that she visited troops going into Iraq in Kuwait. There is absolutely no upside to lying about this.


Oh and edit to add that I agree exactly with you about the Bridge to Nowhere bit that I ...removed from your quote.

Jas_lov 09-14-2008 01:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buccaneer (Post 1832580)
That is absolutely true, which is why one should not support either party and in the least, vote for a split-party government.

So you're advocating we vote McCain/Palin for President and vote Democrat for Congress?

Chief Rum 09-14-2008 02:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 1832564)
Perhaps you should reexamine your choice of signature. ;)

Well, I don't know that the doggedness of refusing to not be heard is necessarily exclusive from my desire that Flasch follow the course in life that brings him true happiness.

Or are you saying that in a pragmatic world, one cannot freely express his own opinions? I think if you're willing to accept those consequences of doing so--that you are happy with them--you are free to freely express those opinions. So long as you live in a nation where you are allowed to do so.

Fortunately, we do happen to reside in such a nation. ;)

Chief Rum 09-14-2008 02:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sabotai (Post 1832602)
Certainly true. The idea that fiscal conservatism is a part of the GOP agenda is a total myth.

I agree that the GOP has drifted significantly far from this ideal, which has caused me much angst. My choice then is to follow the party to the depths of social conservatism with which I have sharp disagreements (religion-based law, lack of gun controls, civil liberty infringements) and ignore its abandonment of fiscal responsibility, or turn to a party which better fits my beliefs (most likely the Libertarian) but thus stripping me of any real personal power in the realm of politics.

The Democrats have moved even further from my ideals in the past ten years, so they are certainly not the answer.

I really wish a moderate, fiscally responsible arm of the Republican Party would split off from the far right and join the Libertarian Party (and hopefully moderate the extremes of position in that party with which I disagree, largely foreign policy) or form their own party with elements of more socially-conservative centrist Independents and moderate Dems.

But unfortunately, such a thing happening would likely only result in the Republican Party as a whole becoming splintered, with neither faction powerful enough to move on its own platform, essentially handing the country to the left and moving us toward a socialistic position.

It's a pretty crummy time to be a fiscally conservative, moderate social Republican.

Chief Rum 09-14-2008 02:38 AM
The thing that strikes me as silly in all this is that, really, what difference does it make if Palin went to Iraq and visited troops? Let's say she did. Let's say she actually went 3-4 times and she has a degree in foreign relations and her best friend is a Muslim (i.e. much further than currently claimed, even by lying McCain/Palin aides).

Even said all that, her foreign experience is still next to nil. Really, the whole reason this happened is because the Republicans (rightly) questioned Obama's foreign relations experience. That is a big negative for Obama, no matter how the Dems try to spin it. I'm not saying the Repubs shouldn't have criticized Obama on this (I think the opposite actually), but they should have handled Palin's experience differently.

The easy answer would have been to select another VP candidate or vet this one a lot more carefully or decide from the start that they were going to accept the hit that would come from a lack of foreign policy experience on the part of Palin. But the GOP is trying to have and eat its cake at the same time. They want to rip Obama for lack of foreign policy experience AND avoid charges of the same for their own candidates.

And if there's anything here that pisses me off about it, it's not the lying that has Flasch on edge--it's the stupidity. I hate stupid people. Sometimes genetics are the reason, and I can forgive those people. But I find that most "stupid" people aren't stupid at all--they're just lazy, uncommitted to the more difficult, but more truthful and honest way. They don't want to work as hard, so they make shit up to make it go away. I fucking can't stand people like this.

The Repubs were right to choose Palin from a campaign perspective, because it is clear her selection has made a difference here. It might save the election for the GOP in the long run. And I don't know that they had another candidate who could have brought them this sort of bounce back AND given them foreign policy experience. So let's say they were right to criticize Obama for his foreign policy record, and were correct for choosing Palin (from an election standpoint, this isn't an argument for her fitness for the position). They should have said, "Yes, she is about as experienced with foreign policy as Obama, but she's the VP, not the P."

Of course, they didn't because lying was easier. :rolleyes:

JPhillips 09-14-2008 07:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Rum (Post 1832869)
Well, I don't know that the doggedness of refusing to not be heard is necessarily exclusive from my desire that Flasch follow the course in life that brings him true happiness.

Or are you saying that in a pragmatic world, one cannot freely express his own opinions? I think if you're willing to accept those consequences of doing so--that you are happy with them--you are free to freely express those opinions. So long as you live in a nation where you are allowed to do so.

Fortunately, we do happen to reside in such a nation. ;)

I just found a contrast between the idealism of your sig and warning Flasch about being idealistic. Nothing big.

TazFTW 09-14-2008 07:20 AM
Minnesota Poll: Obama, McCain are dead even in state

And with that poll, RCP has moved Minnesota from leaning Obama to toss up

Flasch186 09-14-2008 08:33 AM
I didnt see SNL last night but saw a clip of the Palin/Clinton (Fey/Pohler) skit and, on mute, it was sick the resemblance between Fay and Palin.

Flasch186 09-14-2008 10:13 AM
Its a sad state when ALL of this money, on both sides, will be 'blown' on campaigning at all and worse than that is the negativity we will endure for the next 50+ days :(

Obama raises $66 million in August - Yahoo! News

Quote:
Obama raises $66 million in August

Ben Smith 1 hour, 34 minutes ago

Sen. Barack Obama raised $66 million in the month of August, making it his best month ever and the best in American political history, an aide said Sunday morning.
ADVERTISEMENT

Obama is releasing that number after suggestions that his fundraising was failing to meet expectations. It puts him on pace to substantially outspend John McCain in the last two months of the race, in which McCain will be limited to spending the $84 million supplied by the Treasury under public financing rules.

Obama's large take, and the expectation that he'll raise even more in the race's final two months, may put to rest some Democrats' worries that he'd made a mistake by opting out of public financing.

It doesn't mean the Democrats will outspend the Republicans this year, though. The Republican National Committee's cash advantage over the Democratic National Committee, in combination with swelling outside spending, will likely allow McCain to level the playing field, though the fact that Obama has raised the money himself, in small chunks, gives him direct control over how it's spent, and fewer concerns about technical limits on spending.

An Obama aide said the campaign added 500,000 new donors to its rolls in August. The new figure — which shatters his previous one-month record of $55 million — also demonstrates how the increasingly heated, nasty race has energized Obama's fundraising and raises expectations that he will raise that much or more in each of the next two months.

Obama's tally suggests that McCain's late-August choice of Sarah Palin, which has energized conservatives — though largely too late for them to contribute directly to McCain's campaign — may also wind up deepening Obama's reserves when its full effect is felt in his September report.

The McCain campaign raised $47 million in August.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said that the Obama campaign had $77 million on hand; it had just under $66 million on hand at the end of July, meaning that it spent roughly $55 million last month.

Grammaticus 09-14-2008 10:33 AM
Palin said she visited Kuwait and Germany on that trip in the Gibson interview.

Now it looks like ABC and Gibson played games with the video.

Gibson better watch out, his credibility is heading into Dan Rather territiory.


Quote:
ABC Misrepresents Palin Quote in ‘Holy War’ Question
by FOXNews.com
Friday, September 12, 2008

Millions of TV viewers who watched ABC News’ interview with Sarah Palin Thursday night never saw her take issue with a key question in which she was asked if she believes that the U.S. military effort in Iraq is “a task that is from God.”

The exchange between Palin and ABC’s Charlie Gibson, in which she questioned the accuracy of the quote attributed to her, was edited out of the television broadcast but included in official, unedited transcripts posted on ABC’s Web site, as well as in video posted on the Internet.

But in the version shown on television, a video clip of her original statement was inserted in place of her objection, giving a different impression of how Palin views the Iraq war.
In the interview, Gibson asked Palin: “You said recently in your old church, ‘Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.’ Are we fighting a Holy War?”

Palin’s response, which appears in the transcript but was edited out of the televised version, was:

“You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.”

“It’s exact words,” Gibson said.

But Gibson’s quote left out what Palin said before that:

“Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

The edited televised version included a partial clip of that quote, but not the whole thing.

Gibson’s characterization of Palin’s words prompted a sharp rebuke from the McCain campaign on Thursday.

“Governor Palin’s full statement was VERY different” from the way Gibson characterized it,” read a statement circulated by McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds.

“Gibson cut the quote — where she was clearly asking for the church TO PRAY THAT IT IS a task from God, not asserting that it is a task from God.

“Palin’s statement is an incredibly humble statement, a statement that this campaign stands by 100 percent, and a sentiment that any religious American will share,” Bounds wrote.

In the rest of the segment that aired, Palin told Gibson that she was referencing Abraham’s Lincoln’s words on how one should never presume to know God’s will. She said she does not presume to know God’s will and that she was only asking the audience to “pray that we are on God’s side.”

A promo posted on Yahoo! News Friday continued to misrepresent the exchange. It displays Palin’s image next to the words, “Iraq war a ‘holy war?’” implying that Palin — not Gibson — had called the War on Terror a holy war.ABC News did not respond to requests for comment from FOXNews.com.

ABC’s mischaracterization of Palin’s words was not the only one in the media. The Washington Post also did some last-minute clean-up in one of its articles on Palin — a front-page story Friday with the headline “Palin Links Iraq to Sept. 11 in Talk to Troops in Alaska.”

As pointed out by The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol, the original version posted online used harsher language than the one that hit Beltway newsstands early Friday morning.

The original passage, written by staff writer Anne E. Kornblut, read:

“Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would ‘defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.’

“The idea that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein helped Al Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a view once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself. On any other day, Palin’s statement would almost certainly have drawn a sharp rebuke from Democrats, but both parties had declared a halt to partisan activities to mark Thursday’s anniversary.”

But in the print version, and the version now appearing on the newspaper’s Web site, the article softened its claim a bit by swapping in the last line with this: “But it is widely agreed that militants allied with Al Qaeda have taken root in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion.”

Flasch186 09-14-2008 10:35 AM
GOOD! I had stated I thought editing was bad and Im glad that ABC and Gibson may have to feel the repercussions of this. I hope they reap what they sow. Like posted by someone else if you want to edit the order crap is shown or put commercials in, so be it, but a question then an answer should be showed, or quoted in full.

The 'whether or not' she went to Iraq isn't important in the Gibson interview because they were already 'recharacterizing' her trip. It was a while ago when they inferred she visited troops in Iraq so that it looked like she had visited the 'military theatre' and average Joe American would think, 'hey, she went to Iraq...just like those other politicians I see on TV'. Now, and in the Gibson interview they had already begun the 'retelling' of the campaign aides statement(s).

Passacaglia 09-14-2008 10:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grammaticus (Post 1832983)
Palin said she visited Kuwait and Germany on that trip in the Gibson interview.

Now it looks like ABC and Gibson played games with the video.

Gibson better watch out, his credibility is heading into Dan Rather territiory.

That sucks. Too bad it wasn't a live interview. Anyway, I don't see anything about her saying she only visited Kuwait and Germany in that article.

digamma 09-14-2008 11:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1832975)
Its a sad state when ALL of this money, on both sides, will be 'blown' on campaigning at all and worse than that is the negativity we will endure for the next 50+ days :(

I'm not sure I understand exactly what your complaint is here. The money that is spent supports other aspects of the economy (buying television ad time (albeit at a discounted rate), printing supplies, telecom, food and service industry in the places candidates visit, etc.). It's not like the money is just set on fire.

Flasch186 09-14-2008 11:10 AM
I guess I didnt look at it like that and could see the money put to better use but your point is well taken. Then I would move onto phase two of my complaint, which is, it stinks that it seems it will be spent 'negatively.'

Buccaneer 09-14-2008 11:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1832764)
Slippery slope, wanna start digging up her quotes and other people's quotes to hold them to exactness? Both camps will hate that world I'd think.

Slippery slope? My god, the slippery slope and falling off cliffs have been going on in American politics ever since Jefferson's candidacy and presidency. It only has magnified in the past 16 years due to the near real time access to every move, words and actions of everyone (whereas before we hear about it sometimes after the fact). It is the nature of man's politics to lie, deceive, present half-truths and engage in secrecy because it is the method to obtain and hold on to power in a democratic election. It is truly expected because the game is to beat your opponent in a battle for largely uneducated, uninformed or superficial voters. However, just because the past 16 years have been a daily slippery slope and falling off cliffs broadcasted everywhere, the amount of rancor and extremism have been nothing compared to the 19th century.

There is absolutely nothing in history that suggests it (man's methods for obtaining and holding onto power) will change, just the medium. It is not a cynical view but a realistic one based on mountains of evidence. It is the nature of power which you cannot change but the solution is, as it always have been, is to focus on the actions and attitude of what you can do to make a positive difference. The Serenity Prayer should be your guide.

JPhillips 09-14-2008 11:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grammaticus (Post 1832983)
Palin said she visited Kuwait and Germany on that trip in the Gibson interview.

Now it looks like ABC and Gibson played games with the video.

Gibson better watch out, his credibility is heading into Dan Rather territiory.

I saw the excerpts on ABC News Thursday night and I'm sure the "exact quote" segment was there. Was it edited out for 20/20 later?

sabotai 09-14-2008 11:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Rum (Post 1832873)
I really wish a moderate, fiscally responsible arm of the Republican Party would split off from the far right and join the Libertarian Party (and hopefully moderate the extremes of position in that party with which I disagree, largely foreign policy) or form their own party with elements of more socially-conservative centrist Independents and moderate Dems.

But unfortunately, such a thing happening would likely only result in the Republican Party as a whole becoming splintered, with neither faction powerful enough to move on its own platform, essentially handing the country to the left and moving us toward a socialistic position.

Yeah, the key to that working would be that they would have to get as many Democrats on board as Republicans, otherwise there would be too much of a shift in power in favor of one party. I wonder what it would take to get the most moderate 1/3rd of the Republican party and the most moderate 1/3rd of the Democrats to split and form a new political party.

I'm sure it would take a series of relatively catastrophic political events to happen at this point, but at the rate that the two major parties are drifting to their social extremes while both throwing out the idea of fiscal responsibility, the opportunity for either a third party rising up or a major shake up in one of the major parties is becoming wide open. (At least I like to think that...)

Buccaneer 09-14-2008 11:49 AM
Quote:
relatively catastrophic political events

That would be true for last time that has happened, it was during the extreme emotions leading up to the Civil War where the Republican party emerged between the Southern/Jacksonian Democrats and the Northern Whigs. But it wasn't like they appealed to the middle of each, just a reaction to catastrophic political events.

I don't see something like happening now simply because we have access to too much information and our obsession with economic richness will prevent any major changes to our desired lifestyles. What it could take, hypothetically, without a catastrophic event is simply a charismatic leader willing to fight outside of the huge red/blue party machines.

sterlingice 09-14-2008 11:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by st.cronin (Post 1832779)
I think most voters don't care at all if Palin or Biden has been to Ireland or Iraq or Madagascar. Well, lets put it this way: The voters who haven't made up their mind already about Palin are not likely to be moved by this.

Which, of course, begs the question- if voters *don't* care, then why lie about it?

SI

JPhillips 09-14-2008 12:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buccaneer (Post 1833026)
That would be true for last time that has happened, it was during the extreme emotions leading up to the Civil War where the Republican party emerged between the Southern/Jacksonian Democrats and the Northern Whigs. But it wasn't like they appealed to the middle of each, just a reaction to catastrophic political events.

I don't see something like happening now simply because we have access to too much information and our obsession with economic richness will prevent any major changes to our desired lifestyles. What it could take, hypothetically, without a catastrophic event is simply a charismatic leader willing to fight outside of the huge red/blue party machines.

In theory I think it's possible for a third party candidate to win a major election, but I can't see a scenario for turning that into a successful party. The money, infrastructure and stable of candidates would be very difficult to find. A single person can spend millions and see what happens ala Perot, but building a party is much more difficult.

sterlingice 09-14-2008 12:11 PM
The political structure, as set up by the two parties, is such that it is optimal for 2 parties. Odd how they make laws designed to keep themselves in power ;)

SI

Chief Rum 09-14-2008 12:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 1832909)
I just found a contrast between the idealism of your sig and warning Flasch about being idealistic. Nothing big.

Heh, I would view the sig as not so much idealistic as representative of my stubborness to make myself heard on those issues which most certainly require it. You're right, though, that it is a more difficult road to travel in a world that calls for pragmatism and moderation.

JPhillips 09-14-2008 01:00 PM
Looks like there's a surge in the war against truth.

Quote:
This week, non-partisan fact-checking organizations like PolitiFact and FactCheck.org have called Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) out for lies in his attack ads against Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). But on Fox News Sunday today, former Bush political adviser Karl Rove dismissed the organizations, claiming that “they’ve got their own biases built in there.” “You can’t trust the fact-check organizations,” said Rove.

sabotai 09-14-2008 01:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 1833082)
Looks like there's a surge in the war against truth.

I agree with Rove. Never trust fact checkers that can give thorough sources for all of their information. Fuckin' commies are what they are!

Flasch186 09-14-2008 01:51 PM
**shaking head then putting face in hands**

Where will it end? You cant trust anyone so just trust us. Its like I'm watching the movie V for Vendetta.

Grammaticus 09-14-2008 02:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Passacaglia (Post 1832993)
That sucks. Too bad it wasn't a live interview. Anyway, I don't see anything about her saying she only visited Kuwait and Germany in that article.

No, that article was about the gods will portion. I was just indicating that Palin herself said the trip was to Kuwait and germany during another portion of the Gibson interview. That was a subject that was getting kicked around earlier in the thread.

Grammaticus 09-14-2008 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhillips (Post 1833018)
I saw the excerpts on ABC News Thursday night and I'm sure the "exact quote" segment was there. Was it edited out for 20/20 later?

I didn't see the original airing, I just saw segments after the fact. I also saw that specific segment on a youtube clip, which did include her questioning the accuracy.

Flasch186 09-14-2008 03:17 PM
Rove also had this to say today:

Quote:
(CNN) -- Former Bush adviser Karl Rove said Sunday that Sen. John McCain had gone "one step too far" in some of his recent ads attacking Sen. Barack Obama.
Karl Rove said both candidates are guilty of going too far in their attacks.

Rove has leveled similar criticism against Obama.

"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."

The Obama campaign immediately leaped on the quote.

"In case anyone was still wondering whether John McCain is running the sleaziest, most dishonest campaign in history, today Karl Rove -- the man who held the previous record -- said McCain's ads have gone too far," said campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor, in a statement sent to reporters minutes after Rove's on-air comments. Rove masterminded both of President Bush's successful White House bids.

Rove said both candidates need to "be careful" about their attacks on each other.

"They ought to -- there ought to be an adult who says, 'Do we really need to go that far in this ad? Don't we make our point and won't we get broader acceptance and deny the opposition an opportunity to attack us if we don't include that one little last tweak in the ad?' " he said.

Obama on Saturday accused McCain and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin of avoiding the issues to "distort" his record.
Don't Miss

* Aide: McCain campaign 'sleaziest' in modern history
* CNN poll of polls: McCain up by one point
* Election Center 2008

"They're going to talk about pigs, and they're going to talk about lipstick; they're going to talk about Paris Hilton, they're going to talk about Britney Spears. They will try to distort my record, and they will try to undermine your trust in what the Democrats intend to do," he said at a stop in Manchester, New Hampshire.

McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds criticized Obama for showing "zero restraint," considering what Gulf Coast residents were facing after Hurricane Ike. Bounds said the "attacks mark a new low from Barack Obama."

The Obama campaign shot back and accused McCain of "cynically running the sleaziest and least honorable campaign in modern presidential campaign history."

McCain said last week that he thinks the tone of the campaign would be different had Obama agreed to appear with him in town hall meetings across the country.

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign announced Sunday that it had raised $66 million in August. The new total bests the campaign's previous high of $55 million, which came in February during his tough primary fight with New York Sen. Hillary Clinton.

The Obama campaign said more than half a million new donors contributed in August, when the Illinois senator accepted the Democratic presidential nomination and named Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware as his running mate. The campaign had more than $77 million in cash on hand at the end of August, compared with about $66 million in July.

On Saturday, McCain's campaign reported raising $47 million in August. That haul also set a monthly record for the Arizona senator, whose campaign says it received a financial shot in the arm after McCain picked Palin to join the ticket.

Obama has rejected public financing, calling the system "broken" -- a decision that frees him to continue raising money for November.

McCain has accepted federal matching funds for his general election campaign, giving him $84 million to spend for November. The money comes with strict spending limits, but the Republican National Committee's victory fund can continue to raise and spend money on his behalf.

With Palin on the campaign trail, McCain has been seeing increased numbers and energy at his campaign events.

The two will hold joint town hall meetings sometime early this week.

A McCain adviser said early plans are to hold the town halls in western Michigan and Wisconsin, although the exact details of where and when they will be held are still being worked out.

McCain laid low Sunday, attending a NASCAR race in Loudon, New Hampshire.

Obama had no public events, but Clinton was scheduled to campaign for him in Ohio.

IMO this is like asking Benedict Arnold whether or not he is loyal. "Well yes, but it depends on when you ask as to whom Im loyal to."

Vegas Vic 09-14-2008 03:44 PM
It looks like having the Republican Convention in Minnesota might be paying dividends. In two new Minnesota state polls, it's dead even in this one, and Obama is up by 2 in this one.

Big Fo 09-14-2008 04:34 PM
I can't believe even Karl Rove is calling out McCain. Can't wait for some Republican to complain about media bias since Rove's quotes came from a CNN article.

adubroff 09-14-2008 05:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Rum (Post 1832873)
I agree that the GOP has drifted significantly far from this ideal, which has caused me much angst. My choice then is to follow the party to the depths of social conservatism with which I have sharp disagreements (religion-based law, lack of gun controls, civil liberty infringements) and ignore its abandonment of fiscal responsibility, or turn to a party which better fits my beliefs (most likely the Libertarian) but thus stripping me of any real personal power in the realm of politics.

The Democrats have moved even further from my ideals in the past ten years, so they are certainly not the answer.

Aren't you stripping yourself of that power if you continue to vote Republican? You are voting for something you don't like (social conservatism) and something you won't get(fiscal responsibility). The longer people like you keep letting the social conservative agenda get advanced at their expense, the further it's going to go. You're not putting any kind of pressure on the Republicans to stop running out this sort of agenda, you're encouraging them to continue on their path.

Voting Liberatarian might be reasonable and in a small way effectual. I would argue that voting Democrat(where you'd atleast be guaranteed a social agenda you agree with) would go further toward that goal.

Flasch186 09-14-2008 05:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Fo (Post 1833299)
I can't believe even Karl Rove is calling out McCain. Can't wait for some Republican to complain about media bias since Rove's quotes came from a CNN article.

Im sure he's just a disgruntled ex-employee :)

larrymcg421 09-14-2008 07:47 PM
Some better polling news for Obama today:

Hotline/FD national poll has him up +2. Maybe the GOP convention bounce wearing off? We'll see what tomorrow's polls bring.

The two Minnesota polls are worrisome, but Research 2000 has him up +9 in New Jersey and Des Moines Register has him up +12 in Iowa.

ISiddiqui 09-14-2008 07:56 PM
I think most had Obama winning NJ and Iowa fairly easily (at least NJ... Iowa was supposed to be leaning Obama, partially because of its proximity to Illinois).

ISiddiqui 09-14-2008 08:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 1833449)
Hotline/FD national poll has him up +2. Maybe the GOP convention bounce wearing off? We'll see what tomorrow's polls bring.

Though Gallup Tracking and Rasmussen Tracking have McCain up by +2 and +3 respectively.

Arles 09-14-2008 08:00 PM
I think Rove's *trying* to be somewhat intellectually honest. For those that listen to opinions from the right, you'd know he's pretty much lambasted inaccuracies by the Obama campaign on Fox News. I'm guessing this is the new "fair and balanced" Rove ;)

I'm still amazed people on the left are still parsing/selectively choosing Palin's words and expecting questionable "gotchas" to pay dividends. The people who like Palin aren't going to be changed by any of this. And some on the fence (esp women) are going to start defending her more and more as articles like one on ABC news' interview keep coming out. Also for the earlier comments by the RNC on keeping Palin in the news is helping them, the media is actually doing it because they think it helps Obama.

If you would have told me that back in July the republican nominee would completely galvanize the party, help McCain in the polls and pretty much take every bullet thrown at the ticket for 1-2 months (and even generate sympathy). I would have said you're crazy.

Every day that goes by with more criticism on Palin from the left on the top of news cycles is one less day to have that be a criticism on McCain. I can't believe it, but it looks like McCain is actually the favorite to win right now. As someone from Arizona who's seen McCain for years, this is amazing to me. He really should have no chance in this election - he speaks little on the economy, has little background in health care, has terrible skeletons (first wife, keating, Cindy's brewery ties,...). Yet, all we're hearing is whether Palin actually visited troops on the Kuwait border instead of inside the theater in Iraq. Now maybe I see Rove's base for his comments. He's frustrated the McCain/Palin ticket is leading the media/democrats into the "briar patch" better than he ever did with Bush.

larrymcg421 09-14-2008 08:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 1833455)
I think most had Obama winning NJ and Iowa fairly easily (at least NJ... Iowa was supposed to be leaning Obama, partially because of its proximity to Illinois).

Sure, but there was a Marist poll that showed NJ narrowing, so I'd still consider this good news. As for Iowa, it's still a battleground states and one of the ones Kerry lost, so it's good to have a huge lead there.

larrymcg421 09-14-2008 08:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISiddiqui (Post 1833460)
Though Gallup Tracking and Rasmussen Tracking have McCain up by +2 and +3 respectively.

Yeah, but those came out earlier and I already mentioned them. Rasmussen has shown a consistent 3 pt lead for McCain, but Gallup has narrowed considerably over the past few days from a 5 pt lead down to a 2 pt lead.

sterlingice 09-14-2008 08:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1833461)
I think Rove's *trying* to be somewhat intellectually honest. For those that listen to opinions from the right, you'd know he's pretty much lambasted inaccuracies by the Obama campaign on Fox News. I'm guessing this is the new "fair and balanced" Rove ;)

I'm sure ;)

SI

Flasch186 09-14-2008 08:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1833461)
I think Rove's *trying*
I wish you were more like Jon and just said, "the lying is ok, because it's to 'win'" at least then you could have some credibility but when you only tout the talking point for one side it is so transparent its sick. Now I know im considered a lefty but all I want is the truth from both parties to come out in full and then the majority of the country votes according to having all the truthful info. You seem to not even want that! Honestly, Im incredulous but im extra sensitive to it, so be it.

st.cronin 09-14-2008 08:15 PM
I like Karl Rove, I really do.

Flasch186 09-14-2008 08:26 PM
BTW Asian markets open shortly and tomorrow could be a historic day. Scary and historic.

Arles 09-14-2008 08:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1833477)
so youre *trying*, sleight means you think he's lying now right, he's doing some sort of reverse spin which fits your needs
Actually, I was poking fun at Rove and Fox News to a lesser degree. Both are in the tank for McCain and thinking that one comment like this makes them "balanced" is a little funny. Of course, I think MSNBC is completely in the tank for Obama (and most of CNN as well).

Quote:
So you know better than everyone else the motivations. You and Bay need to have a talk.
After a week of watching AC360 and Olbermann/Matthews completely on the offensive on Palin (well before the Gibson interview), I think it's safe to say they weren't lingering on it to be "helpful" to McCain. I also didn't think it was a secret that CNN and MSNBC lean left and Fox lean right.

Quote:
I had no idea that you were this spun.
Now, you're just being disingenuous. You've been following every post I've made for 15 pages telling me how spun I am. So, either you were lying or this post is pure pandering.

Quote:
I dont remember you being this spun 2 years ago during the other elections. You cant admit anything, not one thing that might go against your platform or stubbornness. At least others including myself admit when she does something right but you cant even admit one thing wrong, not one. It truly amazes me, i want you to know.
Oh, I know. I'm rooting for McCain/Palin and will present arguments that often tend to go in their favor. I am not impartial and I have no desire to be fair to both sides with each post. See, it's not that hard. You may want to try a post like the above sometime. You will feel better.

Quote:
The Campaign is lying, has lied, has been exposed for it, they continue to do it. (Lying tying Iraq to 9/11 recently)
Your indignation is noted. In fact, it's been noted for about 20-25 pages or so. For me, it's not a big deal that she met our Armed forces on the outskirts of Kuwait as opposed to inside the heart of the Iraq battle. I also think she's been fairly upfront with that in the two interviews/speeches she's done where the subject was brought up. But, it bothers you. Fair enough.

Quote:
I wish you were more like Jon and just said, "the lying is ok, because it's to 'win'" at least then you could have some credibility but when you only tout the talking point for one side it is so transparent its sick.
This subject has been more eloquently dealt with by many others to this point, but I'll take a stab at it as well. Both sides are going to try and depict their candidate in the best possible light and slam their opponents. There are moments where both will go over the line, they will get called on, but life will go on. It's the way US politics has been for a long time. For me, I'm OK with it all and actually enjoy the reactions from both sides (which is why I regularly watch AC360, Matthews and Fox). If this process really creates this amount of indignation - especially for something as innocuous as the Palin Iraq theatre/border of Kuwait issue, then perhaps there are better activities for you with your blood pressure in mind than following politics.

Quote:
Now I know im considered a lefty but all I want is the truth from both parties to come out in full and then the majority of the country votes according to having all the truthful info.
The majority of the country will never vote "according to having all the truthful info" regardless of how much heartburn you give yourself. Now, if you want to make it your job to be "honesty cop" on both sides, I'd love to see you start doing that. But it's no big deal if you want to focus 80% of your energy on criticizing the right. I've focused almost 100% of my energy on helping McCain/Palin, so you're welcome to do the same.

Your Shtick of "truth detector" is getting a little silly though. You're like the leftist version of Bill O'Reilly.

Flasch186 09-14-2008 08:50 PM
best post youve ever written....however feel free to post the lies that Obama or his campaign have stated. they truly are harder to find. not nonexistent just anomalies while the ones on the right seem to come out daily (media bias i am sure). Truth cop I am not BUT I dont think honesty is not something to be strived for. You are correct though in stating that it seems a great majority of people are willing to accept the spin from their side and I just dont get it and it does make me sick and that probably is not a good thing and something I should work on but it truly goes against my fabric....and I dont like falafel.

Arles 09-14-2008 08:57 PM
I actually enjoy reading what you write (and most here). I have no problem taking certain biases into account when reading posts and encourage others to do that with me as well. The point of a thread like this is not to have every post be completely impartial, intellectually honest or even truthful. It's to allow both sides to have their say and follow this incredibly interesting election until November. That's all I want from it and think if most people treat it like that, the debate will be interesting and fun for all. ;)

Flasch186 09-14-2008 08:58 PM
that would be a more healthy outlook for me if I can adopt it.

JPhillips 09-14-2008 09:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by larrymcg421 (Post 1833471)
Yeah, but those came out earlier and I already mentioned them. Rasmussen has shown a consistent 3 pt lead for McCain, but Gallup has narrowed considerably over the past few days from a 5 pt lead down to a 2 pt lead.

I wouldn't trust that Hotline poll. The sample size is very small and sesms prone to swings.

Buccaneer 09-14-2008 09:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flasch186 (Post 1833503)
that would be a more healthy outlook for me if I can adopt it.

It would also be more healthful to focus more on other activities that you can control, like your business, your family and your community. You come across like you never, ever have experienced a political election cycle, nor have known about anything that have gone on in politics in the past 200 years. You can control your actions, as well as be an example to those you influence but to take things personally of those things you cannot control, that's not good.

Arles 09-14-2008 09:20 PM
Man, if I got upset at all the spin and deception in a major political campaign, you'd have to lock me up in a padded cell somewhere. ;)

The fact that Flasch186 can still make solid posts and be somewhat civil is fairly amazing. It must be something in that tea ;)

sterlingice 09-14-2008 09:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1833497)
After a week of watching AC360 and Olbermann/Matthews completely on the offensive on Palin (well before the Gibson interview), I think it's safe to say they weren't lingering on it to be "helpful" to McCain. I also didn't think it was a secret that CNN and MSNBC lean left and Fox lean right.

Some weeks, it's not bias if one side is making all the news. The last two weeks (much more 2 weeks ago than last week), it was one candidate, Palin, specifically, who kept making all the questionable statements. Oh, hell, questionable statements, my ass- they're lies.

The difference is that Fox, being a propaganda machine, is all but ignoring what happened while other news outlets are actually reporting on it. I'm pretty sure the week of "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" that CNN and the "liberal" network media outlets (I don't think MSNBC existed at the time) covered that 24x7 because lies are ratings.

The stuff that Palin has said and is being called on are out and out lies. These aren't your garden variety political hedgings or parsed words or misquotations with qualifications like "my opponent voted to steal money from little children" (read: they didn't pass the super pork laden bill but voted for a different pork laden bill). The "I visited troops in Iraq" thing falls under this as she was in Kuwait and at a border crossing. Pretty close- not the truth but not a lie.

These are flat out lies like "the sky is green" and "the grass is red" and hoping no one will call them on it. I'm referring specifically to the Bridge to Nowhere, ebay plane, and firing of the chef lies. Individual items that aren't really that big of a deal. But then why lie about it? Unless you're really hoping items like that, when she's on a really limited exposure and limited leash with what she talks to the media about, are key items in creating her image and now all of those things turn out to be false.

SI

Flasch186 09-14-2008 09:29 PM
perhaps, but I gotta tell ya, that I feel like giving up the 'good' fight means Im giving into Chief's statement, "The World Sucks" and it almost deflates me. I wish more people would try to 'elevate' instead of what I see in this country over the last 20 years, not just in politics, as a depreciation of expectations and standards.

Flasch186 09-14-2008 09:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arles (Post 1833528)
Man, if I got upset at all the spin and deception in a major political campaign, you'd have to lock me up in a padded cell somewhere. ;)

The fact that Flasch186 can still make solid posts and be somewhat civil is fairly amazing. It must be something in that tea ;)

Actually the caffeine may be a negative my friend but If you want to buy some Ill be more than happy to make you some :)

Arles 09-14-2008 09:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sterlingice (Post 1833530)
I'm referring specifically to the Bridge to Nowhere
I think it's fair to be for a major funding project when you are running for governor, then change your tone after 8-9 months in office. In fact, I would call that fairly decent leadership. The chicken way would have been to keep doing it as not to piss off the people who had lobbied for the funding.

Quote:
ebay plane
She said she listed it on ebay and she did. Again, maybe a little deceptive as she sold it privately after no one purchased it on ebay. Still, the point was she put a plane that the prior governor sunk money and time into and sold it. Again, not much deception here.

Quote:
and firing of the chef lies.
We really don't know what happened here. We know the guy had issues with driving while drinking, tazing his 10-year old son and (if you believe the Palin family) threatening them. Now, I'm willing to admit that she overstepped some boundaries on trying to get the guy fired. But, the case hasn't been settled yet and while the most damning issue you've posted, it's not something that's likely to have an impact once the Palin spin comes out.

Quote:
Individual items that aren't really that big of a deal. But then why lie about it?
As far as I can tell she never lied on the ebay comment or on the Iraq trip. Maybe I'm missing something here. They were certainly embellished a bit by her supports and the McCain campaign, but nothing that I would classify as "lies" or outright deceptions. The point of both is that she listed a boondoggle for sale and sold it and that she visited the troops in the middle east. Throw in the entire AC/Candy Crowley piece over two nights on the out of context "god" comment and I think it's fair to say CNN and MSNBC were much more critical on Palin than the facts (or most unbiased people) would feel is necessary. It's the same way that Fox wasn't as probing as they should have been.

Glengoyne 09-14-2008 09:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo (Post 1830341)
...
Notable instances where we haven't: the Kyoto Protocol, the International Court of Justice (to name two).
....

I'd be disappointed if any President, Democrat or Republican, agreed to allow our troops to be tried under the International Court of Justice. We simply aren't going to cross that line.

On Kyoto. This is a pretty ridiculous thing to hold against Bush. This went down on the order of 97-1, something close to that, in the Senate when Clinton was in office. Before you can blame Bush for a treaty, you need to consider the reality.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:59 PM.
Page 45 of 111 « First < 35363738394041424344 45 4647484950515253545595 > Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.