americanwoman

With politicians it's impossible to know when they are being honest. It's more the- let's give them what they want to hear- that they all seem to follow from all sides. I am trying to reach out to some people who constantly degrade other people simply because of their party. I am just getting so sick and tired of this election and how bad the media has gotten about it.

independent_thinker2002

I have no problem with you reaching out. It's a good thing.

I was just pointing out that essentially, when we (American voters as a whole) get tired of one party's lies, we switch to the other party's lies.

__________________
==]:{o

jfuh

In all honesty, 9 out of 10 of the stuff I've been hearing from the McCain camp are nothing but flat out lies that have been thoroughly debunked. Palin's still marching around parading that she killed the bridge to no where and McCain campaign going around shouting that Obama wanted sex ed for kindergartners as well as raise taxes for the middle class. All of which flat out lies.
McCain and Obama both had opportunities to present how they will tackle the economy this whole week, Obama took stage and immediately re-itterated his 6 point plan for the economy McCain said he would form a 9/11 committee, that's really tackeling the problem.
So I guess what I'm saying is this. I want to hear each of their positions but from one side all I hear is nonsense and negative character attacks - so unequally it's a bit "one sided".

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming

Objective Voice

AmericanWoman and Tashah have valid points. Unfortunately, I'm afraid most people won't take the time to learn about the issues nor what either presidential candidate truly stands for. Most will stick with their party no matter what.

I'm a Democrate, but I've often voted across party lines if I felt the Democratic candidate wasn't worthy of my vote. I've always done what AmericanWoman suggests moreso in this election year than any other, and as of right now Obama has my vote because if nothing else he's been the most consistant throughout his campaign as far as where he stands on the issues - domestic employment, health care, the economy, government reform, energy across the board (i.e., domestic petrolium usage, bio-fuels and renewable energy) and his foreign policies - whereas in my view McCain has flip-flopped often not to mention he's been most contridictory on the issues.

I've said it before...it's going to come down to the debates before most American's (or those who are still undecided) make up their minds.

jfuh

That really is a reflection on the voters who don't demand the truth but would fall for the lies of one or the other.

The kind of leadership we get is a direct reflection of the kind of voters we are.

jfuh

I hope this is true - if the conventions and the amount of viewership those received are any indication of how the debates will come out I do hope this is right.
However the real question is, with the way in which the debates are set up these days just how much information from either of the candidates would a voter really be able to get?
Neither of them will be able to cross examine the other candidate aka call each other on their lies. How many people actually access fact checking for what each of the candidates are rolling on?
Unfortunately too little.

Zyphlin

I LOVE when people use the words "flat out lies". The best part of it is the only way it could even be called a lie is if you're saying "not telling every facet of the story is a lie" theory, in which case they themselves are lieing because they leave out facts about the story.

Did the bridge happen? Her stating she said thanks but no thanks is not "Flat out lieing". It is omitting perhaps the fact that she wasn't originally against it, or that she used the money appropriated for it for a variety of state projects instead of a singular one but didn't give it back...but then if that's her "lieing" then you TOO are lieing by implying that she didn't "kill" it at least in some way and omitting the fact that in the end she truly did oppose it and technically her statements on it are true. So is she "flat out lieing" and so are you, or was she not giving the entire story and neither are you?

Again, not a flat out lie (not this part you're stating at least). He DID vote for sex ed for kindergartners. Now, the caveat was that it should be "age appropriate". However, there is a large contingent of people in this country that I do not doubt don't want their schools teaching their children anything about STD's (something mentioned on fact check as one of the things that would be made to be stated "age appropriately"), being touched in a bad place, and other such things. None of which discounts the fact that, whether its age appropriate sex ed or not, its still sex ed.

So, once again, its not a "flat out lie" unless you TOO are "flat out lieing" by not telling the whole story about it yourself Jfuh.

While you fail to mention that Obama's plan to let the Bush Tax Cut's expire would cause a raise of taxes for the middle class. Wow, jfuh, are you just "flat out lieing" or just not taking the time to tell the whole story when it will go against what you're trying to present.

Plus from what I remember most of the time they're stating that Obama's tax increases will hurt the middle class, not specifically tax the middle class. They come to this conclussion due to the increases on businesses and corporations under Obama's plans and the theorizied impact that will have on people due to goods and services. A dishonest presentation by not telling the whole facts when they're stating it and expecting people to do research to understand what they mean? Perhaps, but then you're doing the exact same thing. So are they "flat out lieing", and by extension are YOU flat out lieing, or are they just not giving the whole story as you aren't.

If that's the case, by your same definition you must be flat out lieing as well.

__________________
Obama Wins. Time to reach for the new American Dream: "Strive for Mediocrity, avoid success, get free crap"

Objective Voice

Not really. In today's information age you can find out damned near anything you want to know about the candidates, their views, their policies/plans and even compare "facts" from fiction.

Both candidates have their own websites:

Barack Obama - Welcome to Obama for America

John McCain - JohnMcCain.com - McCain-Palin 2008

For fact checking, I'd recommend FactCheck.org, OnTheIssues.org, or Politico.com. Of course, you could always rely on sources such as CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, ABCNews, Washington Post, New York Post and other mainstream media. I'd prefer to go "outside the lines" so to speak to get an unbias perspective...or as unbias as possible outside of normal channels to at least verify what's being said in mainstream media.

To give an example of how traditional media can be loopsided, yesterday (9/16/08) I was listening to the Rush Limbaugh show followed by the Sean Hannity show and both commented on how Obama has received millions in campaign contributions from former Fannie/Freddie CEOs and how's he's the #2 (or 3) leading receiptant of compaing funding from same. Well, just out of curiousity I wanted to know what coorporate sponsorship McCain's campaing has received and I happened to stumble across and old article from the Executive Intelligence Review dated 8/23/02 where McCain was deeply involved in the S&L scandal of the '90s. Point: Before you go rattling off about one candidate's associations, you'd better know what the other has been involved in.

Objective Voice

Zaphlyn,

You're stretching things quite a bit. You know people will react to exactly what they hear. So, if you tell them a cow jumped over the moon may ask, "Really?" while others will say, "You're lying. No way can that happen," and still others will know it's untrue because...well, cows don't jump.

By Gov. Palin saying "she" killed that Bridge to Nowhere, i.e., "thanks, but no thanks" implies she turned it down from the very beginning or at least at some point during the negotiating process. She didn't! So, in essense it's a lie no matter how you slice it. That's just like a mob boss saying he didn't tell anyone to bump someone off, but instead what he said was "get rid of the bum." If it's implied that's his way of saying "nex the guy", well, how else is one to interpret the hit order?

I know, a bit extreme, but I use it to make a point. You can exaggerate all you want and most people won't take the time to check things out for themselves, but if you look under the first or second layer what you'll eventually come out with is the truth. And as we're discovering (the public ... or at least those who do listen attentively with an open mind and do check the facts) is Palin/McCain have told some pretty tall tails...moreso than their Democratic counterparts. But you don't have to take my word for it. I've provided a few good, non-bias websites where you can check things out for yourself.

Good Luck! And may the truth led us all to the right choices for Election 2008!!

jfuh

I'm sure you will provide credible sources to support your arguments then.

So that the bridge didn't happen despite her open support for it until congress took initiative and terminated the project thus it means she is not lying? She did not say thanks but no thanks until congress already said - sorry you're not getting the bridge. That's not a fiscally sound anti-earmark anti-pork barrel spender by any standards and yes that she continually trumps that "thanks but no thanks" line around despite it being fundamentally false is lieing.
FactCheck.org: GOP Convention Spin, Part II

In combination with the further out of context quotes with the accusation of sex ed for kindergartners it was obvious that the McCain campaign was trying to smear Obama with sexual taboos for such youth.
FactCheck.org: Off Base on Sex Ed

THis is again, utterly untrue and you're at best oblivious.
I challenge you to cite that Obama's tax policies will result in tax increases that will hurt the middle class.
You say they, but just who are they, back it up.
Obama's policy is similar to that of Clintons of taxing those that can afford to be taxed while taxing less those of the middle class.
While it's highly dishonest and you'd get debunked for claiming that Obama is taxing small businesses or middle class, you're now spinning it into how taxing the rich would theoretically trickle down and hurt the middle class - well that's a first that I've ever heard of trickle down economics but I'll bite. If such taxation would theoretically trickle down to hurt the middle class, how hurting would be taxing the middle class directly while giving cuts to the rich? Would those cuts trickle down and help the middle class?
I've seen this kind of tax policy, it's the one we've had for the past 7 years, and it hasn't done diddly.


I've here backed up everything I've claimed with credible independent sources that to the best of my knowledge are factual and accurate. I can't say the same about McCain-Palin who's campaigns are flat out lying over and over and over the same repeated lies and smears.
Again, FactCheck.org: Fake Lobbyists & Tax Deception and again FactCheck.org: There He Goes Again