Obama versus McCain (versus the rest)

[Buccaneer]

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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:

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]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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]

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

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]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

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]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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]

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

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]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

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?

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

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]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

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.

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]

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]

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]

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...

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

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

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

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:

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

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:

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]

DOLA, so everyone in the world is wrong about this I?

[ISiddiqui]

Well they all mention aides said X... nothing about the candidate herself saying she was in Iraq.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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]

We already live in that world.

[flere-imsaho]

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]

the funniest part (but pisses me off) is it's such a silly and unnecessary spin.

[st.cronin]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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]

Originally Posted by fantom1979

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]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

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]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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]

Originally Posted by sabotai

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.