Another day, another lie from Palin/McCain

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear


As a Community Organizer for the Cook County Democrat Machine, Obama's south Chicago core constituents were 3rd Generation Welfare Moms living in Public Housing, collecting AFDC, Welfare, and Section 8 Housing Allowances.

A completely one-sided and one-dimensional generalization of Obama's "south Chicago core consituents"... Obama lived in Hyde Park, a middle class oasis that knows the despair of the area first hand... Obama was an outsider... the last thing the middle class area of Hyde Park wants is to be surrounded by a culture of welfare dependence and crime...

But this IS Chicago politics, and it ain't called "the Windy City" because of the weather...

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all

Obama knew that Hyde Park, despite its reputation as the center of anti-machine progressives, was not exempt from other Chicago political traditions. During the first half of 1995, when he was preparing for his campaign for the State Senate, a big story in the neighborhood was a race for alderman marked by accusations of dirty tricks (endorsement flyers from a phony group of gay African-Americans were distributed the day before the election, apparently in an effort to stoke homophobia) and anti-Semitism (the campaign of one of the candidates was accused of being run by "Jewish overseers").

Heck FB... with all the homophobia and anti-Semitism, you might just feel right at home on the Southside...  [8D]

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

Obama has said he would provide tax cuts to 95% of the working poor (i.e., those who earn a wage).  You do realize that everyone who works pays taxes in the form of FICA and medicare, right?  Maybe you don't know too much about the working class poor, but there is a little thing called the Earned Income tax credit.  It is an incentive to encourage those who earn low wages to seek out work.  It is designed to offset the cost of FICA & medicare taxes, and is provided even when you owe no federal income tax.  President Bill Clinton worked hard to increase the EIC, resulting in a significant rise in the number of families lifted out of poverty.

I don't know where you learned math, but when person X pays no taxes and receives $500 from the government in April and you increase that to $1000 it is NOT a tax cut.  It's called income redistribution.

Just more smoke and mirrors.  When you raise the marginal rate on small businesses from approximately 39% to 50% do you think employees get raises or bonuses?  Do those businesses hire more or potentially let people go to make up the lost revenue.  Pretty simple ideas here folks.

quote:
You say that you could go on and on with examples of Obama fabricating, yet you provide not a single example.  

I though you'd never ask; here are a few:

*  DC Handgun Ban

As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns. -- Obama's Statement

Do you support state legislation to:ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes. -- Politico

*  Born Alive Vote

Obama voted against the "Born Alive Protection Act" because he said it would erode Roe v Wade, but he would have voted for the bill had it been like the federal bill.  Well, surprise, he voted down a bill nearly IDENTICAL to the federal bill.  He took a position farther to the left than NARAL.

He can't seem to give a straight answer. -- Town Hall

*  Public Financing.

If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?    

Yes -- Midwest Democracy

* More Fund Raising Fudge

"We have now raised 90 percent of our donations from small donors, $25, $50. We average -- our average donation is $109 so we have built the kind of organization that is funded by the American people that is exactly the goal and the aim of everybody who's interested in good government and politics supports."

Ooops try 50%... but I'm sure he just "misspoke" again. -- Open Secrets

*  On being an endorsed candidate

"You will recall that for my entire political career here, I was not the the endorsed candidate of any political organization here"

Please list all the endorsements you have so far:
4th, 5th, and 6th Democratic Organizations, Aldermen Preckwinkle and Steele, and the New Party --Politico




Shall I continue?

[PonderInc]

I just watched a Saturday Night Live video with Tina Fey playing Sarah Palin.  The weird thing is that if I saw videos of Tina and Sarah side by side, I wouldn't be able to tell you which was the "real" candidate!

(Except I'd be happier if it were Tina Fey.  She wouldn't be qualified either, but if McCain should croak, I wouldn't have to worry about having another George W in the White House...and I'd feel more comfortable with Fey's Supreme Court picks.)

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw
I don't know where you learned math, but when person X pays no taxes and receives $500 from the government in April and you increase that to $1000 it is NOT a tax cut.  It's called income redistribution.

I don't know where you learned about taxes, but if you look carefully at your paycheck stub each month (assuming you are employed), you'll notice several areas where the government takes out money--federal income tax, FICA, and Medicare--all of which are called "taxes."  At the end of the year, when you have paid several thousands of dollars of taxes, and the government sends you some of that back, it's called a "tax cut."  You said that Obama was lying about tax cuts.  Whether you like his proposal or not is irrelevant; the fact is that he wasn't lying.

quote:

quote:
You say that you could go on and on with examples of Obama fabricating, yet you provide not a single example.  

I though you'd never ask; here are a few:

*  DC Handgun Ban

As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns. -- Obama's Statement

Do you support state legislation to:ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes. -- Politico

*  Born Alive Vote

Obama voted against the "Born Alive Protection Act" because he said it would erode Roe v Wade, but he would have voted for the bill had it been like the federal bill.  Well, surprise, he voted down a bill nearly IDENTICAL to the federal bill.  He took a position farther to the left than NARAL.

He can't seem to give a straight answer. -- Town Hall

*  Public Financing.

If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?    

Yes -- Midwest Democracy

* More Fund Raising Fudge

"We have now raised 90 percent of our donations from small donors, $25, $50. We average -- our average donation is $109 so we have built the kind of organization that is funded by the American people that is exactly the goal and the aim of everybody who's interested in good government and politics supports."

Ooops try 50%... but I'm sure he just "misspoke" again. -- Open Secrets

*  On being an endorsed candidate

"You will recall that for my entire political career here, I was not the the endorsed candidate of any political organization here"

Please list all the endorsements you have so far:
4th, 5th, and 6th Democratic Organizations, Aldermen Preckwinkle and Steele, and the New Party --Politico




Shall I continue?

[/quote]

First, we are talking about lies, here, not "flip-flops."  If you want to start a thread on that, I am sure I can come up with a few examples for McCain.  I don't know where you learned the definition of lie, but it is making a statement that you know to be false.  Changing positions on public finance is not a lie.

For the fund raising, please provide a source & date for your quote.  Don't understand your "endorsed candidate" cite.  As for your abortion cite, there is a big difference between right-wing editorial interpertations, and an outright lie.  

I will admit that Obama did say he opposed an out right ban on guns, when in fact at one time a survey filled out in his name had a typewritten "Yes" in response to a question asking whether he supported a ban on guns.  More of a "flip flop" in my opinion, but if McCain ran an ad exploiting that, I would say it is fair game.

I fully expect each candidate to exagerate their record, and wiggle on controversial positions.  But when you repeatedly make statements of fact that simply are not true--even run ads with them--you are no longer politically posturing.  You are in fact lying.

[iplaw]

Let's start with the first quote, we can deal with the others separately:

quote:As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.

This statement is, in fact, a complete and total lie.  In fact, it invovles TWO distinct lies in the same story.

He filled out a questionnaire in 1996 while running for state senate in Illinois where he was asked the following question:

quote:Do you support state legislation to ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?

His answer was an unequivocal YES.

This is not simply switching positions, he lied about the fact that he never favored an all-out ban on handguns.

He followed this lie up by saying that he never filled out or "signed" the document.  Later it was proven that he did, in fact, sign that document.

The links I provided in the previous post contain all the needed verification and simply link to the actual document sans spin.

[iplaw]

Secondly, the born alive vote lie is very simple to understand.

Obama was quoted as saying that he would have supported the Born Alive protection act if it would have contained language similar to the federal bill.  He repeated this assertion at Saddleback.

The Illinois bill was identical to the Federal bill, yet he refused to sign it into law.  I will post both if you'd like to see them.  They are very, very short bills.

So either he didn't read the bill, or he was lying about his intentions to sign that bill.

[Hometown]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by Breadburner

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

I wonder if anything out of their mouth has any semblance of truth any longer.  McCain is now running ads that are deceptive, or complete fabrications.  He claims that Obama is spreading false rumors about Palin, and references Factcheck as the source, even though Factcheck actually says that McCain distorts their findings.  McCain went on the View and claimed that Palin never requested earmarks as governors.  Of course that isn't true.  Even the ArmyTimes is questioning McCain veracity.  

McCain introduced Palin as the gun-toting maverick that stopped the bridge to nowhere.  Not true.  He said she stopped wasteful spending and fought against earmarks.  Again, not quite accurate.  When questioned whether Palin had traveled overseas, her spokesperson said that she had traveled to Ireland, Iraq, Kuwait, and Germany.  Later, it was revealed that she only refueled in Ireland.  Not what I would call an in depth tour of the country.  Now we learn that she didn't actually go to Iraq, but only went to the border crossing between Kuwait & Iraq.  

Then there are the exaggerations that are so extreme that they are ridiculous.  For starters, McCain & Palin have been making up the number of people attending their rallies.   McCain says that Plain knows more about energy than anyone else in the country.  Wow.  Move over T. Boone, and all you people with, you know, degrees in petroleum engineering, geophysics, or even some sort of science background.  And who knew that Alaska produced 20% of the country's energy?  Apparently, no one besides Ms. Palin because it just isn't true. But don't worry because she has foreign policy experience since she can see Russia from Alaska.  I can see the moon from my window and therefore I am an astronaut.

McCain must really being getting desperate to completely abandon any sense of integrity, and to start making stuff up in order to win.  Obviously, he knows he can't win on the issues.

Palin/McCain?  Thanks, but no thanks.

Oh my GOD! Stop the presses...a political candidate is running ads that may "distort" the truth!!!

Did you notice the WHOPPER your candidate is telling in a recent set of ads where he says that he's going to cut taxes for 95% of US?  Explain to me how this is possible seeing as how only 60% of the population actually ever pays taxes?  How do you CUT taxes for people that DONT pay them to begin with?  It's called the "robin hood complex."

Tip of the iceberg...

I don't think you really want to get into the truth stretching, fabrications, and flat out lies from your candidate over the last few years.  I could post until Christmas and still not run out of material...

Answer:  

The top 5% of Americans that pay 40% of the Federal Income Taxes will get their asses taxed off by President Barack Hussein Obama.

Not to mentioin what he will do to Sub S Corp/small bizz......

Should be an interesting first day in office for Obama, after the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff resigns in protest to having to serve under a confirmed hard-care Marxist Leninist at the top of the National Command Authority.

Hope the Russkis are too complacent to attack in the subsequent confusion.........

On Obama's first day in office the Joint Chiefs will report to their New Commander in Chief and follow his instructions.

If anyone makes written or spoken threats against his life they will be guilty of a federal offense and be subject to prosecution for committing a crime.  I will personally report any threats to Obama's life that I become aware of.

I heard Obama on the Presidential Forum last week and my goodness I am even more impressed than before.  We have our Obama sign up in the yard and I am so proud to be able to cast my vote for him.

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Secondly, the born alive vote lie is very simple to understand.

Obama was quoted as saying that he would have supported the Born Alive protection act if it would have contained language similar to the federal bill.  He repeated this assertion at Saddleback.

The Illinois bill was identical to the Federal bill, yet he refused to sign it into law.  I will post both if you'd like to see them.  They are very, very short bills.

So either he didn't read the bill, or he was lying about his intentions to sign that bill.

Decide for yourselves:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

[FOTD]

Negativity is their weakness and they will project it onto Barack. Just remember, when Karl Rove pats you on the back, look for a knife....Karl Rove Says McCain Ads Go Too Far
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/09/14/karl-rove-says-mccain-went-too-far/

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Secondly, the born alive vote lie is very simple to understand.

Obama was quoted as saying that he would have supported the Born Alive protection act if it would have contained language similar to the federal bill.  He repeated this assertion at Saddleback.

The Illinois bill was identical to the Federal bill, yet he refused to sign it into law.  I will post both if you'd like to see them.  They are very, very short bills.

So either he didn't read the bill, or he was lying about his intentions to sign that bill.

As I said before, provide me with some references--something beside rightwing commentary, and I will respond.

In the meantime, I guess you don't disagree with anything I posted about McCain, since you have offered nothing to refute it.  Why don't you defend your guy?  Maybe because his behavior is indefensible.

Palin/McCain--same old dirty politics.  Thanks, but no thanks.

[RecycleMichael]

Palin/whats his name

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

Palin/whats his name

I know, but it's still so funny!

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Secondly, the born alive vote lie is very simple to understand.

Obama was quoted as saying that he would have supported the Born Alive protection act if it would have contained language similar to the federal bill.  He repeated this assertion at Saddleback.

The Illinois bill was identical to the Federal bill, yet he refused to sign it into law.  I will post both if you'd like to see them.  They are very, very short bills.

So either he didn't read the bill, or he was lying about his intentions to sign that bill.

As I said before, provide me with some references--something beside rightwing commentary, and I will respond.

In the meantime, I guess you don't disagree with anything I posted about McCain, since you have offered nothing to refute it.  Why don't you defend your guy?  Maybe because his behavior is indefensible.

Palin/McCain--same old dirty politics.  Thanks, but no thanks.

Actually, I disagree with quite a bit of it.  If you do recall, I've been a bit busy addressing some of your other questions.  I'll respond when I'm done with this discussion.

In the meantime, I guess you don't disagree with anything I posted about Obama vis-a-vis handgun bans, since you have offered nothing to refute it.  Why don't you defend your guy?  Maybe because his behavior is indefensible.

Back to his abortion lie:

Mr. Obama contended that he "would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported," but that he voted against the 2003 Illinois bill because "that was not the bill that was presented at the state level." Except that it was. -- Realclear Politics

Previous versions of the BAIPA were not identical to the Federal bill.  The final version included the "neutrality" clause that he said he wanted in the bill.  He got the language he asked for.  He didn't vote for it.

Here are the two bills side by side. -- Bills

So the statement that he was, "fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported" is a blatant lie.

If you don't like the Realclear politics link, the New York Times has the same quotes.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Secondly, the born alive vote lie is very simple to understand.

Obama was quoted as saying that he would have supported the Born Alive protection act if it would have contained language similar to the federal bill.  He repeated this assertion at Saddleback.

The Illinois bill was identical to the Federal bill, yet he refused to sign it into law.  I will post both if you'd like to see them.  They are very, very short bills.

So either he didn't read the bill, or he was lying about his intentions to sign that bill.

As I said before, provide me with some references--something beside rightwing commentary, and I will respond.

In the meantime, I guess you don't disagree with anything I posted about McCain, since you have offered nothing to refute it.  Why don't you defend your guy?  Maybe because his behavior is indefensible.

Palin/McCain--same old dirty politics.  Thanks, but no thanks.

Actually, I disagree with quite a bit of it.  If you do recall, I've been a bit busy addressing some of your other questions.  I'll respond when I'm done with this discussion.

In the meantime, I guess you don't disagree with anything I posted about Obama vis-a-vis handgun bans, since you have offered nothing to refute it.  Why don't you defend your guy?  Maybe because his behavior is indefensible.

As I said, filling out a single questionaire that said he would support a ban twelve years ago, and then saying he never support an all out ban of handguns is a bit misleading.  Luckily, unlike your guy, he isn't run campaign ads or making campaign speeches on this issue.

quote:
Back to his abortion lie:

Mr. Obama contended that he "would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported," but that he voted against the 2003 Illinois bill because "that was not the bill that was presented at the state level." Except that it was. -- Realclear Politics

Previous versions of the BAIPA were not identical to the Federal bill.  The final version included the "neutrality" clause that he said he wanted in the bill.  He got the language he asked for.  He didn't vote for it.

Here are the two bills side by side. -- Bills

So the statement that he was, "fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported" is a blatant lie.

If you don't like the Realclear politics link, the New York Times has the same quotes.

Really, are you an attorney?  You understand that state law and federal law are two different things.  The exact same language in a state law and a federal law can result in completely different outcomes, because they are governed by different constitutions and different laws.  Obama explains that his vote against the 2003 act was based on the failure to include a provision that specified it would not interfere with Illinois abortion laws.  According to Planned Parenthood

quote::
Finally, perhaps the most significant difference between the federal and state versions of the legislation is the fact that the federal version applied to federal law while the state version applied to Illinois law. The federal legislation was considered to be a restatement of existing federal law. The federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act did not amend or change Illinois law. At the time, there were no federal laws regulating abortion in any way. Therefore, the federal law did not limit access to abortion services or threaten legal action against physicians. But, Illinois law does regulate abortion and medical practice. Therefore, it is the state legislation that would have affected abortion practice in Illinois, not federal law. While these differences between the federal and state legislation may appear to be just legal technicalities, when it came to medical care for pregnant women the actual impact would have been significant.

In 2005, the Illinois legislature did finally pass the bill, once it included language that specifically excluded its affect on ILLINOIS law.

Remember, a lie is an assertion of fact that you know to be incorrect.

I understand that you don't support a woman's right to control her own body.  But we are discussing LIES here.  Even if you don't agree with his explanation, that doesn't mean he lied. (I wouldn't cite to Planned Parenthood as proof of his claim, but only cite to it to prove he had justification for his statement, and therefore it cannot be a lie).

In the future, you might try citing to some legitimate sources instead of the Right to Life Council and some editorial.

[pmcalk]

Back to your guy, why can't you defend him?  And the lies keep coming.  Today McCain admitted that Obama never called Palin a pig.  

She refuses to cooperate in the investigation that she previously welcomed.

And, not a lie, but I love the fact that today, Palin says that she has an idea to track all of the government's expenses online, like they do in Alaska.  Hmmm, sounds a bit like the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act--the act that Obama & Coburn pushed through.  http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/30/palin-aides-welcome-alaska-probe/