The Whoppers of 2008—The Sequel

When Obama f

What is amazing about the out and out lies McCain keeps promoting is does America really want another President who will lie to your face while stabbing you in the back?
That McCain has the support he has is astounding.
It brings into question the intelligence of the voting public and the answer is not encouraging,
These ads are directed at the low intelligent, low information voters,
Is that who we want making the decision for high office we all have to live with just as we have for the last eight years?

What kills me is that when McCain tries to adjust his message or tries to compromise and change a program or stance on an issue he is immediately pointed at as flip-flopping; however, when Obama does the exact same thing he is said to improve his position or fine tune his plan, etc. etc.

Why aren't you pouncing on this one as Obama flip-flopping on the issues, no you simply say (after being criticized by McCain) "advisers quickly announced that they had added a work requirement." Isn't this flip=flopping on the issues?

How about a "FUNNY QUOTE FROM OBAMA." Actually not a quote because I don't remember the exact words and will say that up front but, in I think the second debate with McCain, Obama denied ever saying he would sit down with leaders in the middle east without preconditions. However, when it was pointed out in the reviews immediately following the depate that he had actually said that in the Democratic debates, he phoned in to say he was mistaken and agreed that he had in fact said that. What followed from the commentators is what killed me, they said that they were told that Obama was clarifying is position and now agreed that he would not sit down without some preconditions.

I guess this is not flip-flopping, but clarifying his position. Seems like a flip-flop to me but none of the media jumped on that and splashed it all over the news.

What ever happened to reporting the news instead of making it? What ever happened to unbiased reporting? I understand free speech and everything and wouldn't want it any other way but come on the news media should be banned from taking a position in a political race.

What if it was someone else or something else? What if for example all the Hollywood stars that kids looked up to started going on TV and campaigning for the use of drugs and that its a cool thing to do? I could see it now, "hey kids get drunk it a cool thing to do." Wouldn't you be the first to pounce on them because these are the people that influence kids lives? Wouldn't you demand a stop to it?

So how is the news media any different? Anything you say, right or wrong influences the world. If you then take a side, you have a tendency to favor positive reporting on your side and not the other. Isn't that influencing the world to your opinion and instead of reporting the news you are in fact making the news by slanting people to your views?

What kills me is that when McCain tries to adjust his message or tries to compromise and change a program or stance on an issue he is immediately pointed at as flip-flopping; however, when Obama does the exact same thing he is said to improve his position or fine tune his plan, etc. etc.

Why aren't you pouncing on this one as Obama flip-flopping on the issues, no you simply say (after being criticized by McCain) "advisers quickly announced that they had added a work requirement." Isn't this flip=flopping on the issues?

How about a "FUNNY QUOTE FROM OBAMA." Actually not a quote because I don't remember the exact words and will say that up front but, in I think the second debate with McCain, Obama denied ever saying he would sit down with leaders in the middle east without preconditions. However, when it was pointed out in the reviews immediately following the depate that he had actually said that in the Democratic debates, he phoned in to say he was mistaken and agreed that he had in fact said that. What followed from the commentators is what killed me, they said that they were told that Obama was clarifying is position and now agreed that he would not sit down without some preconditions.

I guess this is not flip-flopping, but clarifying his position. Seems like a flip-flop to me but none of the media jumped on that and splashed it all over the news.

What ever happened to reporting the news instead of making it? What ever happened to unbiased reporting? I understand free speech and everything and wouldn't want it any other way but come on the news media should be banned from taking a position in a political race.

What if it was someone else or something else? What if for example all the Hollywood stars that kids looked up to started going on TV and campaigning for the use of drugs and that its a cool thing to do? I could see it now, "hey kids get drunk it a cool thing to do." Wouldn't you be the first to pounce on them because these are the people that influence kids lives? Wouldn't you demand a stop to it?

So how is the news media any different? Anything you say, right or wrong influences the world. If you then take a side, you have a tendency to favor positive reporting on your side and not the other. Isn't that influencing the world to your opinion and instead of reporting the news you are in fact making the news by slanting people to your views?

Sarah takes all the money she can from federal tax earmarks, hires a lobbyist to get more, and repeatedly tells the electorate that she told Congress "no thanks" on The Bridge To Nowhere, but in fact she took the federal tax funds that were earmarked for it.

So, she wasn't distributing federal tax funds, 'cause she put THOSE FEDERAL TAX FUNDS into a DIFFERENT POCKET from the pocket from the funds she distributed to Alaskans.

I bet those federal tax funds she didn't REDISTRIBUTE are actually different dollars than the ones I paid for federal taxes.

Part of the money she distributed she said came from her raising taxes on the oil companies. The oil companies had to recoup those higher taxes through higher gas prices. I'm also certain that none of the dollars I spent for higher gas prices, were included in the dollars Sarah redistridistruted to Alaskans.

And since she gave those dollars to all Alaskans, it's not true that she took money from some and gave it to others.

I see. That's really, really, really different, now that I understand. According to "Nowforthetruth" that's not REDISTRIBUTION, that's capitalism.

I see...

A 40 year republican

Nowforthetruth" also continues to keep repasting postings that suggest that the root cause of our problem is a law decades old that encourages loans to qualified low income people. "Nowforthetruth" is part of the spin/propaganda machine, and continues to repeat well known deceit.

Alan Greenspan stated recently that the problem was not anything like that. Rather, he stated that an entire financial system was built outside of regulation, and 'we trusted' these self-interested looters to regulate themselves. Credit Default Swaps were the result.

Credit Default Swaps increased from $106 trillion in '02 to $531 trillion under the R stewardship. No regulation.

While there are several variations of a viral email that tries to blame a few thousands of political donations to some Democrats, the actual, legitimate news has reported that Fannie and Freddie paid many millions to Republican lobbyists to lobby Republicans to PREVENT REGULATION.

McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, received up to $35K/mo. from Fannie and Freddie from 2000 to present, to lobby Rs,only, against regulation. Freddie has paid Rick Davis while he has been McC's campaing manager. Freddie donated $250k to the R convention.

These facts are everywhere in the legitimate news. You can start at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/us/politics/22mccain.html and http://www.newsweek.com/id/164732/page/1 There's much more legitimate news on this.

Trillions were looted from our economy because the Rs allowed it. It is inescapable that the Rs, most prominently McC's campaign manager, were in the pockets of big money while they drove the buss off the cliff with us in it.

You can try to distract people with fears about 'those guys'. Lies, distortion, deception. 'Socialist' is only the last in a long, now desperate, list of labels you have tried to pin on 'that one'. That's all you have left.

Is your most recent reposting here directed to fears about "Socialism", or is it just innuendo, or are we trying to fold in a little racism too?

I've got an idea, since we have no more ideas, let's keep running our campaign on fear, smears and hypocrisy.

Keep talking "Nowforthetruth", you're really helping. You keep demonstrating that we all have to vote against lies and propaganda and attempts to hijack our political process with deceit. Your actions are the kinds of reasons that I'm voting for Obama after 40 years of never having voted for a Dem.

A 40 year republican

Previous postings indicate that "truth will be told" is a good representative of the rabid Republicans who attribute significance to Obama's middle name because he shares it with Saddam. These people seem to forget (or perhaps never knew) that one of our strongest allies in the Middle East for decades was King Hussein of Jordan.

Clearly, neither candidate comes out of this campaign squeaky clean, for sure, but anyone who has watched the whole thing from Day One sees the obvious difference of degree. The level of venom emanating from the McCain campaign has been so far above and beyond anything even remotely considered relevant or necessary as to become almost a caricature of itself.

Furthermore, most (though not all) of the negative ads from the Obama team have been in response to an earlier smear from his opponent.

McCain went negative the minute his poll numbers started slipping, and since then, has never even come close to regaining the moral high road. It's a shame to see a former man of integrity so willing to sell out for the sake of power.

Yesterday, ExxonMobil announced the highest corporate profits in US history.
John McCain's economic plan gives $4 billion in new tax breaks to Big Oil, such as ExxonMobil.
Under McCain, 101 million Americans wind up with no tax relief at all.

Obama is giving tax breaks to 95% of working families and small businesses. Says those in the top bracket will be on the same numbers as under Pres. Clinton. We are producing less and selling less. Obama is reaching out to everyone to get the economy moving from the bottom up. Under Obama, we will back to pre-Bush levels of taxation and we know during that period, the economy was strong!

McCain calls Obama's credits 'welfare', while his he calls his 'reform'. ......

Enough already.