'Unethical?'

factcheck.org

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: jidlo @ 10/29/2008 2:30:18 PM

    I think if the tape can be supressed from america L.A.Times has , then Obama"s prime time tonight should also be supressed.from America.Hey Fair is Fair right?

  • Posted By: wendydk @ 10/29/2008 2:29:55 PM

    THE REAL JOHN MCCAIN

    Make-Believe Maverick ; A closer look at the life and career of John McCain reveals a disturbing record of recklessness and dishonesty

    http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain/page/1

  • Posted By: MegaDeath @ 10/29/2008 11:10:34 AM

    The Los Angeles Times is refusing to release a videotape that it says shows Barack Obama praising a Chicago professor who was an alleged mouthpiece for the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was a designated terrorist group in the 1970s and '80s.

    According an LA Times article written by Peter Wallsten in April, Obama was a "friend and frequent dinner companion" of Rashid Khalidi, who from 1976 to1982 was reportedly a director of the official Palestinian press agency, WAFA, which was operating in exile from Beirut with the PLO.

    In the article -- based on the videotape obtained by the Times -- Wallsten said Obama addressed an audience during a 2003 farewell dinner for Khalidi, who was Obama's colleague at the University of Chicago, before his departure for Columbia University in New York. Obama said his many talks with Khalidi and his wife Mona stood as "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases."

    This Smells like a major Cover-Up of Obama's TRUE OBJECTIVES and a cover-up of his Background of "Associates" That "Live in the Neighborhood". WHY IS OBAMA HIDING THIS FROM THE COUNTRY???

    • Posted By: Nins @ 10/29/2008 1:00:45 PM

      MegaDeath, you are completely twisting the meaning of this article in the LA Times. The article PRAISES Obama for being able to see BOTH SIDES of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

      • Posted By: MegaDeath @ 10/29/2008 2:17:34 PM

        Nins your stupidity amuses me. It is Very apparent that you can not read very well. The L.A. Times IS NOT PRAISING Obama. Obama is PRAISING A PLO TERRORIST!! IF Obama's Campaign has nothing to hide or nothing to fear on what is on the video tape, then WHY are they paying the L.A. Times not to release the tape? Could it be that all of this time that Obama is nothing more than a BIG LIAR??

  • Posted By: calipauthy @ 10/28/2008 9:35:39 PM

    Obama has many ties with Iraq and the Muslims. He seems to have become a millionaire or multi-millionaire very easily and almost effortlessly. Does he really have America's interests at heart?
    This election has me very worried. So many things to consider. About a year ago I would have voted for Obama. I have changed my mind three times since than. I watch all the news channels, jumping from one to another. I must say this drives my husband crazy. But, I feel if you view MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, you might get some middle ground to work with. About six months ago, I started thinking, 'Where did the money come from for Obama?' I have four daughters who went to College, and we were middle class, and money was tight. We (including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of student loans.

    I started looking into his life.

    Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California. He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies. 'Barry' (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan. During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a 'round the world' trip. Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family. My question - Where did he get the money for this trip? Nether I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they where in college. When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York. It is at this time he wants everyone to call him Barack - not Barry. Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia? It's not cheap! to say the least. Where did he get money for tuition? Student Loans? Maybe. After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000. a year. Why Chicago? Why not New York? He was already living in New York.

    • Posted By: Nickels @ 10/29/2008 2:16:29 PM

      If you want to know where he got his money to pay of all his school loans. Try reading the 2 books that he wrote. He got his money from them. Why does he live where he live...why do you live where you live? As far as his trips, if he stayed with friends, the cost of his travel would be pretty much air fare, not out of the reach of some students. This Bill Ayers is BS. If what you say is true, why is Bill Ayers not in prison ? What are the "ties" with Iraq & Muslims ? since you changed your minds 3 times so far...maybe you will changed it once more ;-) OR show some FACTS, maybe you can change mine?

  • Posted By: jidlo @ 10/29/2008 2:01:28 PM

    I agree with John McCain on all issues and I think F.B.I. should confiscate 203 tape America has the right to know who they are putting in the highest office in the land. We have that right. Suppressing it is that the kind of administration we are going to see in an Obama administration thats not a free democracy thats Hitler type regime and Communist.

  • Posted By: Let's Get A Clue @ 10/28/2008 5:01:38 PM

    All of these pro-Obama posts glaze over the most important fact about his taxes: Tax increases on corporations.

    Fact (http://www.census.gov/csd/susb/2005/usst05.xls): Firms with 20+ employees employ 81.6% of Americans.

    Fact (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2008/pdf/gdp208f.pdf page 12): The average reported (i.e., tax-basis) profit-per-employee is approximately $12,450 (divide the 2005 pre-tax corporate profits - $1,447.9B - by 2005 total employees - $116.3M).

    Fact: $12,450 x 20 = $249,000.

    Fact: Obama will raise taxes on corporations and small businesses with more than $250,000 in profit.

    Fact: 80% + of all Americans work for a company that will be subjected to Obama's tax increases.


    Do any of you honestly believe that the result of your employer having its taxes raised is a wage INCREASE, or a benefits INCREASE, or enhances your ability to find a job if you're unemployed?

    Do any of you honestly believe that INCREASING taxes on American corporations makes them LESS likely to move jobs overseas?


    Please stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

    • Posted By: Desert Dem Son @ 10/28/2008 5:16:50 PM

      Bush gave the corprorations all the tax breaks they wanted , all the freedom from regulation that they wanted, all lack of resposibility to employees they asked for and what did they do with it?Used the tax breaks tos et up shop overseas or subcontract overseas, produced products that are second rate to other countries, and ruined the future and retirement of their employees. What you conservatives don't understand is what one of yours found out ...Alan Greenspan said the one thing he didn't have in his equations is that the greedy executives and board of directors would not protect the companies, its employees or its stockeholders. Get a clue about the future of America...Except for a very few we are destined to be all in service jobs. Nothing will be engineered here and nothing will be manufactured here. There will be less need for educated peoplej ust got ot know how to answer a phone. Even those jobs will sent to Indonesia. Why is it all other countries protect their jobs and we're called socialist if we want to guarantee a higher standard of living for our children?

      • Posted By: Let's Get A Clue @ 10/28/2008 5:44:34 PM

        No. Bush's tax cuts did more for individuals, not corporations.

        Besides, the argument doesn't make sense. How would cutting the cost of doing business in America provide an incentive for moving overseas? The cheaper it is to operate a business in America, the more likely the business is to stay.

        I know. I'm in a business that operates 4 plants in Ireland because it's cheaper to operate them there. If America's tax rates were cut, there would be much less incentive to set up shops overseas.

        • Posted By: Desert Dem Son @ 10/28/2008 5:58:27 PM

          Check your company's financials. You'll see where they've received tax credits for doing business overseas. That the Bush tax doctrine. I just can't wait till your job is outsourced. The've already shown they can do it. Why would they pay someone here in the uS to do what you do if they can hire somebody there for less than they're paying you. You've got to work harder and smarter so they don't. You'd better stop wasting your time answering these blogs.. They'll find out..they have ways you know. Oh that's right it'll never happen to you. Sorry I brought it up.

          • Posted By: Let's Get A Clue @ 10/29/2008 1:15:23 PM

            It's not the Bush doctrine. The ability to pay income tax at the host country's income tax rate for corporations has been present since the corporate income tax law was enacted in 1909. The clause even survived the extreme protectionism of the Great Depression. The reason is simple: It is critical in ensuring that companies remain American-based. If the clause were not present, you wouldn't see companies setting up branches overseas, you would see companies picking up and moving overseas entirely. Read your history before calling something a "Bush" doctrine. It's not a Bush doctrine; it's the way corporate income taxes have worked since 1909.

    • Posted By: cantwait @ 10/28/2008 5:21:17 PM

      Sorry but the Kool Aid is in your cup. An average means mathmaticly that half are above and half are below the average. So roughly 40% of all Americans work for a company that MAY be subjected to an increase in tax. Also, befor eyou want to melt from doom-n-gloom, you might actually want to find out what the actual increase is. I think you will be surprised at how small a percentage difference this is. Much cheaper for all than trying to support the overwhelming deficit that McCain and Bush have placed us in.

      • Posted By: Let's Get A Clue @ 10/28/2008 5:40:56 PM

        Also, the numbers are only available for 2005. 2008 estimates would put the average at about $13,500 per employee, which means the tax increases affect firms of 18 people or more.

        And I like the comment about finding out what the tax structure is and you bet it will be small. Perhaps you ought to do the research prior to endorsing a candidate. Obama's plan doubles the capital gains tax (devastating to capital investment) and overall results in a 25% increase in revenues from corporate taxes per his submission to the tax policy center for analysis. So if a business used to pay $100 in taxes, it will now pay $125. That's damned significant.

      • Posted By: Let's Get A Clue @ 10/28/2008 5:34:56 PM

        No. A "median" has half of the numbers above and half of the numbers below, not an average.

        Do the math. Even if half of the companies only made $9,000 per employee, this would mean that the company would have to have only 27 employees to be above the limit. At $4,500 per employee, this becomes 34. Firms with 34 or more employees are responsible for 72% of the jobs in America.

        Instead of simply believing, try actually researching and analyzing.

  • Posted By: Nins @ 10/29/2008 12:59:27 PM



    Even committed Republicans who support McCain are asking themselves if they really would take the risk of putting our country into Sarah Palin's hands. Many prominent Republicans, including Colin Powell, have said that Palin is not prepared to be Vice President. Being VP requires a depth of knowledge on national and international issues. Palin is ignorant of these matters. Being President requires great intelligence and a clear-eyed world view, one untainted by religious fanaticism. Look at the mess we got with the under-qualified Dubya, and even he seems smarter and less fanatical than Palin. McCain is 72 years old, with high cholesterol and high blood pressure; his father and grandfather each died of heart attacks at age 72. McCain's Vice President HAS to be ready to lead. And by lead, I am not referring to a full speed charge into Armageddon.

    For those of you who don't know, Palin belongs to a fundamentalist church that believes the end of the world is near: that war, financial distress and famine will kill off the sinful non-believers, and that when this holocaust occurs all good Christians will be taking refuge in Alaska. Furthermore, her church conducts witch hunts -- they actually use prayer to locate "witches" in their community, then publicly brand them as witches, and hold them responsible for everything that goes wrong in town. (Honestly, I think the long winters must be getting to their minds.) You can go on YouTube and watch videos of Palin participating during sermons like this. She stands on the altar facing the members. The congregation stands with outstretched hands, trancelike, speaking in tounges while the priest prays to "keep Sarah safe from all forms of witchcraft."

    Could you REALLY feel comfortable knowing that a woman who holds these beliefs would have the power to declare war and deploy nuclear missiles?

  • Posted By: jayf1948 @ 10/29/2008 9:53:59 AM

    All the politicians want to take your money to gain power by doling it out to friends and their special interests. Some benefit because they fit into the mold the grant, gift, etc. is defined to help the friends. Others, who do not have influence and don't fit the mold are left out.

    Forget rumors, innuendos and gossip. What do you want: humongous government or big government? Do you want to drive away the most productive (then where will the money for all be found?) and hurt the working class? One man has a lot of charisma but is not a friend of the productive members of society. The other doesn't have the charisma but is a bit more productive friendly.

  • Posted By: sandyshores10 @ 10/29/2008 9:44:57 AM

    Obama can buy your vote cheap and stop us from ever becoming millionaires. Get a job you can make more but with Obamas plan you won't have that opperunerty anymore because the midd;le class bosses will be gone. While i understand your jealousy and how badly you want their money. They share this 250.000 with other people. These people already pay more then half to the taxmen. Go on vote for Obama and crash the economy out of greed even judas could be a bought man.
    I would rather trust my country to McCain Palin then to destroy it and every future oppertunerty for every American.

  • Posted By: Sillyslicker @ 10/29/2008 8:52:28 AM

    The Christian ("so called") right has shown their true beliefs in this election. Now everyone can see the intolerance and bigotry that drives their agenda. It's all about suppressing the rights of all minorities, ethnic and religious as well as those of women. How these hate mongers can use the word "Christian" is beyond me. Fascist would be more appropriate.

  • Posted By: My vote counts @ 10/29/2008 8:23:31 AM

    I have read that the Palin home was built near the same time and within the funds for the sports arena in Wasilla. Thats a fact that needs to be checked out, since Stevens was found guilty of using State/City oil funds for work on his home. She hasnt actually been cleared on the Trooper gate abuse of power yet either has she? It would be good to know whether that is true or not before the election. We don't need any more crooks in the White House.

  • Posted By: jazzme @ 10/29/2008 2:28:09 AM

    funny NOT how critical and honest information is left out of the ad,,,course, typically the same used tactict of lies, fear, mistrust...the list will never end for the mccain and palin camp and the acts of desperation they resort to to get what they want. perhaps what boggles my mind is that nether of them have issues with being a party to, and condoning lies. palin is teaching mccain to stoop to a newer low level and this only shows the extent he will lead if he ever obtained the highest seat in the nation and what's her name sits in the second seat. lets see...palin having her husband advise her as always on matters of the nation (even if security protocols dictate he is NOT to be privy to), mcain continuing to lie to the country and the people (current ads show the extent he will crawl to)...desperate people in dire straits who are now resorting to deception, lies and continuing to prey on the fears of this country and the people. how can this country trust them?

  • Posted By: bredreaway @ 10/29/2008 1:16:54 AM

    how low can McCain and Palin sink to try and win an election...these are the type people who should not be in office. They are dividing America and the world is watching us in Disbelief that have not gotten over prejudices

  • Posted By: Sara Sota @ 10/28/2008 11:08:11 PM

    Hey thats funny. Newsweek, you just did an article a few weeks back how ethical and moral behavior is actually a "natural" psychological progression of humanity by way of our evolution. S if we came from apes then why is unethical so bad? It would only be bad if we awere accountable to Our MAker.
    And to rebuke that article I would say that if it was natural then why all the sin in the world and the hurt from it , and the attacks in response to try to make things right and point the fingers at actions that would be considered wrong? By what moral compass are you drawing from? Anyone?

  • Posted By: pugs @ 10/28/2008 10:42:36 PM

    Hey don't you guys have that tape the has Obama talking up the Palestinian anti-Israel professor with hey guess who, Ayers in like company or is that just the LA TIMES>

  • Posted By: tiredoflies @ 10/28/2008 10:34:51 PM

    Clinton handed Bush a surplus. That is common knowledge.

  • Posted By: tiredoflies @ 10/28/2008 10:32:22 PM

    McCain Camp dictum:

    If it is Pro Obama it must be false

    If it is anit Obama, it must be true.

    According to McCain advisor Rick Davis, TRUTH MATTERS NOT.

  • Posted By: tiredoflies @ 10/28/2008 10:27:33 PM

    More stinking lies from McCain and crew.

    The McCain liers are going all out now.

    Consumer beware/

  • Posted By: tiredoflies @ 10/28/2008 5:05:11 PM

    Do NOT forget:

    The republicans DOUBLED the National Debt in the last eight years. That is a $5,000,000,000,000.00 increase.

    There is where the spenders are.

    Remember, in 1992 the republicans were saying the same thing about Clintons policies as they are about Obamas now.

    And Clintons policies created the best economy of the last 50 years, CUT the National Debt and handed Bush a SURPLUS.

    Also, Obama has stated any new spending will be paid for with cuts.

    The republicans are in full fear mode now and do NOT want you to think about this.

    • Posted By: Vypurr @ 10/28/2008 10:26:42 PM

      Clinton did a good job of lying about tax cuts to get into office, and then raised taxes retroactively (one of the largest increases in history) and decimated the military to make things look nice. His "surplus" is a myth: http://www.letxa.com/articles/16

      He was too busy with his pants down around his ankles to do much else.

    • Posted By: Let's Get A Clue @ 10/28/2008 5:10:05 PM

      The problem is that it's not Bill Clinton running for President. Clinton did a remarkable thing: controlled the budget. He did it well, and deserves a great deal of credit for showing that such a thing is possible. But Barack Obama is NOT Bill Clinton.

      Bill Clinton's policies were fiscally conservative. Barack's are not. While arguing that Bush put the nail in the coffin on supply side economics has merit, the idea that Barack's plans are the same as Clinton's plans are hogwash.

      Furthermore, Bill Clinton recognized the value of free trade and the need to keep corporate taxes low. Barack Obama ignores both of those.

      Bill Clinton did a good job. Unfortunately, Obama is no Clinton.

  • Posted By: calipauthy @ 10/28/2008 7:10:16 PM

    Fact check.... what is OBAMA's given name, before his muslim name? the name he used at Occidential, his first university attended before transfering to Columbia? Why did he then use his Muslim name from then on??? What was wrong with Barry?

    • Posted By: tammymarie37 @ 10/28/2008 7:42:28 PM

      his name as always been barack hussein obama.. he used barry obama while in high school, but its not his given name.. and for the last time he is not a muslim. But even if he was, does that imply he is unamerican?

      • Posted By: Vypurr @ 10/28/2008 10:07:22 PM

        Wrong. Indonesia records indicate Obama was enrolled in the Roman Catholic, Franciscus Assisi Primary School on January 1, 1968 and sat in class 1B. He was registered under the name Barry Soetoro, serial number 203. School documents listed Barry Soetoro as an Indonesian citizen and his religion was listed as Islam. He spent three years at Franciscus. Obama was his birth name, Soetoro, his legally adoptive name.

        • Posted By: Vypurr @ 10/28/2008 10:18:50 PM

          BTW, Obama's father was a devout Muslim. His mother and step father. Lolo Soetoro, were also Muslim.

          It is believed that Obama returned to the US at about ten years of age and resumed using his birth name of Obama.

          http://www.puma08.com/2008/10/15/gamechanger-barry-soetoro-aka-barack-obama-is-also-an-indonesian-citizen/

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse