PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Factcheck : The DNC was not speaking the truth tonight on McCain .


ROYC75
08-26-2008, 11:01 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080827/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_factcheck_4;_ylt=AsrbtqRGcJNhjswASE.4Qa1h24cA

OK ,so what else is new, Politics's as usual ......... Dems Spin it to suit their need.

FactCheck: Claims omit details on McCain record

By DARLENE SUPERVILLE, Associated Press Writer 21 minutes ago

DENVER - The shotgun-style charges Democratic National Convention speakers fired at Republican John McCain Tuesday night weren't necessarily half-truths. But in some instances, they weren't the whole story either.
ADVERTISEMENT

Some examples of who said what and what they left out:

___

SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON of NEW YORK: "John McCain wants to privatize Social Security."

THE FACTS: The Republican-sponsored plans McCain has supported over the years would privatize part of Social Security by letting workers invest some of their payroll taxes into private retirement accounts. In the past, McCain has proposed that up to 20 percent of payroll taxes be funneled into private retirement accounts for younger workers. He recently said all solutions for the funding crisis facing Social Security "are on the table."

_SEN. ROBERT CASEY JR. of PENNSYLVANIA: "John McCain calls himself a maverick, but he votes with George Bush 90 percent of the time. That's not a maverick. That's a sidekick."

_PENNSYLVANIA GOV. ED RENDELL: "And guess who voted with President Bush 90 percent of the time? Sen. John McCain."

THE FACTS: McCain voted with President Bush 90 percent of the time from January 20, 2001, to when Congress left Washington on its annual August recess, according to a study by Congressional Quarterly. But McCain wasn't always a staunch Bush backer. In 2005, his support for Bush's position on legislation reached a low of 77 percent; last year, when he launched his latest bid for the GOP presidential nomination, he voted with Bush 95 percent of the time.

_IOWA GOV. CHET CULVER: "Now the oil companies are placing their bets on John McCain, bankrolling his campaign, and gambling with our future."

THE FACTS: McCain has received more than $1.5 million in contributions from oil and gas industry employees and their spouses, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Obama has received about $423,000. But the center's analysis found that Obama has received more than McCain from employees of the oil industry's major companies. Employees (and their spouses) of Exxon, Chevron and BP had given more than $93,000 to Obama as of the end of June; McCain had received $75,000, according to the study.

_RENDELL: Said the fact that top McCain advisers have lobbied for oil and gas companies "explains why he wants to give another $4 billion tax break to oil companies."

THE FACTS: The $4 billion in tax breaks for oil companies is part of McCain's plan to reduce corporate taxes overall and does not represent an additional tax benefit for these companies. The corporate reduction McCain has proposed would apply to all corporations, including oil companies.

_MONTANA GOV. BRIAN SCHWEITZER: "At a time when America should be working harder than ever to develop new, clean sources, John McCain wants more of the same and has taken more than a million dollars in campaign donations from the oil and gas industry. Now he wants to give the oil companies another $4 billion in tax breaks. Four billion in tax breaks for big oil?"

THE FACTS: McCain has collected $1.5 million from that industry. But it's a small slice of the $142 million McCain has raised so far in the campaign, ranking 11th on his donor list. Ahead of the oil and gas industry are lawyers, retirees, banking and securities interests, real estate and insurance.

DaneMcCloud
08-26-2008, 11:08 PM
JFC, Roy.

Did you even READ what you just posted?

The article refuted NOTHING. It made excuses.

Period.

Get a freakin' clue.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-26-2008, 11:10 PM
Quit while you are ahead Roy. They said he voted with Bush 90% of the time, which this article states is true. The 70% number is from one year.

McCain is for privatizing Social Security, but is also against it? If he is for privatizing parts of Social Security, then he is for privatizing Social Security.

So Obama has received roughly 500K from the oil industry, whereas McCain has received triple that amount, and they are off base? Moreover, nothing in the article you mention attempts to rebut Schweitzer's (correct) claim of McCain giving them tax breaks. Just because McCain has collected money from other sources does not absolve him from collecting money from Big Oil, nor does it occlude the rather odd happenstance that he received a huge campaign windfall from them as soon as he pulled an about face on offshore drilling.

What a piss poor article.

|Zach|
08-26-2008, 11:12 PM
Worst fact check article ever?

Fact: Ok, what was said is true but...

J Diddy
08-26-2008, 11:22 PM
Quit while you are ahead Roy. They said he voted with Bush 90% of the time, which this article states is true. The 70% number is from one year.

McCain is for privatizing Social Security, but is also against it? If he is for privatizing parts of Social Security, then he is for privatizing Social Security.

So Obama has received roughly 500K from the oil industry, whereas McCain has received triple that amount, and they are off base? Moreover, nothing in the article you mention attempts to rebut Schweitzer's (correct) claim of McCain giving them tax breaks. Just because McCain has collected money from other sources does not absolve him from collecting money from Big Oil, nor does it occlude the rather odd happenstance that he received a huge campaign windfall from them as soon as he pulled an about face on offshore drilling.

What a piss poor article.

and made up for the 70% by voting at a higher percentage the next year

HonestChieffan
08-26-2008, 11:23 PM
Facts are not important to democrats. Never have been.

Mr. Kotter
08-26-2008, 11:24 PM
Quit while you are ahead Roy. They said he voted with Bush 90% of the time, which this article states is true. The 70% number is from one year.

McCain is for privatizing Social Security, but is also against it? If he is for privatizing parts of Social Security, then he is for privatizing Social Security.

So Obama has received roughly 500K from the oil industry, whereas McCain has received triple that amount, and they are off base? Moreover, nothing in the article you mention attempts to rebut Schweitzer's (correct) claim of McCain giving them tax breaks. Just because McCain has collected money from other sources does not absolve him from collecting money from Big Oil, nor does it occlude the rather odd happenstance that he received a huge campaign windfall from them as soon as he pulled an about face on offshore drilling.

What a piss poor article.

I agree with your assessment, generally.

Seriously though, I wonder though, if you will be AS generous and forgiving when the Republicans trot out the same sort of quotes....that will "selectively" cherry-pick and parse....Obama's record?

:shrug:

I'm open to you surprising me, but somehow I doubt you will.

:hmmm:

DaneMcCloud
08-26-2008, 11:24 PM
Facts are not important to democrats. Never have been.

Apparently they're not important to "Honest Chieffan" either.

J Diddy
08-26-2008, 11:25 PM
I agree with your assessment, generally.

Seriously though, I wonder though, if you will be AS generous and forgiving when the Republicans trot out the same sort of quotes....that will "selectively" cherry-pick and parse....Obama's record?

:shrug:

I'm open to you surprising me, but somehow I doubt you will.

:hmmm:

have you not seen McCains ads?

really there's a thread for everyone on here

DaneMcCloud
08-26-2008, 11:26 PM
I agree with your assessment, generally.

Seriously though, I wonder though, if you will be AS generous and forgiving when the Republicans trot out the same sort of quotes....that will "selectively" cherry-pick and parse....Obama's record?

:shrug:

I'm open to you surprising me, but somehow I doubt you will.

:hmmm:


I will be. I promise.

I'm a registered Independent and I'm seriously looking for the best candidate to lead this country out of its current mess, both domestically and internationally.

It's easy to read through bullshit if you just open your eyes and READ.

Mr. Kotter
08-26-2008, 11:27 PM
have you not seen McCains ads?

really there's a thread for everyone on here


I've been sparse around here; I'll look for it tomorrow.

I'm not surprised he has; I wonder, however, if Hamas finds McCain's assessment of Obama's record....as credible as he found the criticism of McCain tonight though.

:shrug:

irishjayhawk
08-26-2008, 11:30 PM
Another AWESOME Roy thread?

J Diddy
08-26-2008, 11:32 PM
I've been sparse around here; I'll look for it tomorrow.

I'm not surprised he has; I wonder, however, if Hamas finds McCain's assessment of Obama's record....as credible as he found the criticism of McCain tonight though.

:shrug:

Everybody's baby is the prettiest.

All I'm saying is there is some truth in this, albeit probably exaggerated to an extent,
virtually all of McCain's ads have been

rabble, rabble obama bad

Direckshun
08-26-2008, 11:33 PM
Epic thread, moron.

J Diddy
08-26-2008, 11:37 PM
Epic thread, moron.

see I don't equate Roy with a moron

I just don't agree with him

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-27-2008, 12:19 AM
I agree with your assessment, generally.

Seriously though, I wonder though, if you will be AS generous and forgiving when the Republicans trot out the same sort of quotes....that will "selectively" cherry-pick and parse....Obama's record?

:shrug:

I'm open to you surprising me, but somehow I doubt you will.

:hmmm:

I think the first part of this post is a fair assessment, but it seems as though you are going into the next phase with the same bias that you are accusing me of having.

For the record, there is a difference between "he will raise your taxes" with the implied "you" being everyone and it being 2% of the country. I do believe that there is a difference between that and the claim that because more individual families have given money to Obama that he is somehow just as beholden to Big Oil as McCain, who has not only received 3x as much, but gotten it from corporate rather than personal donors.

ROYC75
08-27-2008, 01:30 AM
Open thy eyes, look at it this way ? The facts are that they don't explain all of their comments in their speeches....... Neither party will, It's spin it to your own personal preference by the selected party.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080827/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_factcheck_4;_ylt=AsrbtqRGcJNhjswASE.4Qa1h24cA

OK ,so what else is new, Politics's as usual ......... Dems Spin it to suit their need.

FactCheck: Claims omit details on McCain record

By DARLENE SUPERVILLE, Associated Press Writer 21 minutes ago

DENVER - The shotgun-style charges Democratic National Convention speakers fired at Republican John McCain Tuesday night weren't necessarily half-truths. But in some instances, they weren't the whole story either.
ADVERTISEMENT

Some examples of who said what and what they left out:

___

SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON of NEW YORK: "John McCain wants to privatize Social Security."

THE FACTS: The Republican-sponsored plans McCain has supported over the years would privatize part of Social Security by letting workers invest some of their payroll taxes into private retirement accounts. In the past, McCain has proposed that up to 20 percent of payroll taxes be funneled into private retirement accounts for younger workers. He recently said all solutions for the funding crisis facing Social Security "are on the table."

McCain is looking for a solution to a problem, BTA, it is your money he wants you to keep . This is a problem ?

_SEN. ROBERT CASEY JR. of PENNSYLVANIA: "John McCain calls himself a maverick, but he votes with George Bush 90 percent of the time. That's not a maverick. That's a sidekick."

_PENNSYLVANIA GOV. ED RENDELL: "And guess who voted with President Bush 90 percent of the time? Sen. John McCain."

THE FACTS: McCain voted with President Bush 90 percent of the time from January 20, 2001, to when Congress left Washington on its annual August recess, according to a study by Congressional Quarterly. But McCain wasn't always a staunch Bush backer. In 2005, his support for Bush's position on legislation reached a low of 77 percent; last year, when he launched his latest bid for the GOP presidential nomination, he voted with Bush 95 percent of the time.

But those #'s do not add up to 90% for all the years. Look at it this way, I'm sure there has never been a democrat senator with a 90% voting record with a democrat president ? Right ?

_IOWA GOV. CHET CULVER: "Now the oil companies are placing their bets on John McCain, bankrolling his campaign, and gambling with our future."

THE FACTS: McCain has received more than $1.5 million in contributions from oil and gas industry employees and their spouses, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Obama has received about $423,000. But the center's analysis found that Obama has received more than McCain from employees of the oil industry's major companies. Employees (and their spouses) of Exxon, Chevron and BP had given more than $93,000 to Obama as of the end of June; McCain had received $75,000, according to the study.

All business, not just oil and gas companies. Damned the torpedoes that McCain wants American business to be profitable to give the consumer better jobs. Cutting their profits weakens the companies and lost jobs. All companies......

_RENDELL: Said the fact that top McCain advisers have lobbied for oil and gas companies "explains why he wants to give another $4 billion tax break to oil companies."

THE FACTS: The $4 billion in tax breaks for oil companies is part of McCain's plan to reduce corporate taxes overall and does not represent an additional tax benefit for these companies. The corporate reduction McCain has proposed would apply to all corporations, including oil companies.

Cutting their profits weakens the companies and lost jobs. All companies

_MONTANA GOV. BRIAN SCHWEITZER: "At a time when America should be working harder than ever to develop new, clean sources, John McCain wants more of the same and has taken more than a million dollars in campaign donations from the oil and gas industry. Now he wants to give the oil companies another $4 billion in tax breaks. Four billion in tax breaks for big oil?"


THE FACTS: McCain has collected $1.5 million from that industry. But it's a small slice of the $142 million McCain has raised so far in the campaign, ranking 11th on his donor list. Ahead of the oil and gas industry are lawyers, retirees, banking and securities interests, real estate and insurance.

Not true, some of the same things Obama wants to do is the same thing McCain wants, which I might add is some of the current things we are doing now. McCain knows nuclear energy is the way to go, Obama wants no part of it. Both candidates have issues here to resolve, it's not just a one way street for Obama as the only plan that will work. Both includes trial and error methods for future savings that Americans must make some sacrifices for, Obama wants you to make a bigger sacrifice by not softening the oil demand , right away.

Saggysack
08-27-2008, 02:45 AM
HEY YOU GUYS!!!

patteeu
08-27-2008, 07:38 AM
Good post, Roy. Don't listen to the haters. They don't like their misleading spin being unspun like this.

Messier
08-27-2008, 07:49 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080827/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_factcheck_4;_ylt=AsrbtqRGcJNhjswASE.4Qa1h24cA

OK ,so what else is new, Politics's as usual ......... Dems Spin it to suit their need.

FactCheck: Claims omit details on McCain record

_PENNSYLVANIA GOV. ED RENDELL: "And guess who voted with President Bush 90 percent of the time? Sen. John McCain."

THE FACTS: McCain voted with President Bush 90 percent of the time from January 20, 2001, to when Congress left Washington on its annual August recess, according to a study by Congressional Quarterly. But McCain wasn't always a staunch Bush backer. In 2005, his support for Bush's position on legislation reached a low of 77 percent; last year, when he launched his latest bid for the GOP presidential nomination, he voted with Bush 95 percent of the time.

.

This is not a positive for McCain. It's like they confused the point of the that he voted with Bush 90 percent of the time. The exact number being 90 isn't the issue, it's that he voted with Bush a whole lot, sometimes more than 90 percent, and these numbers verify that.

ROYC75
08-27-2008, 08:08 AM
This is not a positive for McCain. It's like they confused the point of the that he voted with Bush 90 percent of the time. The exact number being 90 isn't the issue, it's that he voted with Bush a whole lot, sometimes more than 90 percent, and these numbers verify that.

This is true, it's the Bush part, Now if Bush was a democrat they would be chipping to a different tune.

But the fact they painted the whole picture as fact, even if it was misleading along the way..... typical politics, twist the truth to your own preference. It's a tactic done by both parties, but let the Liberals be the catching part and they want to fight about it.

At least I can see the faults of my party or candidate, unlike " most democrats " .

Cave Johnson
08-27-2008, 08:09 AM
Factcheck: Eveything the D's just said is true.

Nice rebuttal, Roy.

Duck Dog
08-27-2008, 08:18 AM
I agree with your assessment, generally.

Seriously though, I wonder though, if you will be AS generous and forgiving when the Republicans trot out the same sort of quotes....that will "selectively" cherry-pick and parse....Obama's record?

:shrug:

I'm open to you surprising me, but somehow I doubt you will.

:hmmm:


Trick question, Obama Hussain doesn't have a record.

DaKCMan AP
08-27-2008, 08:19 AM
LMAO What a dunce..

ROYC75
08-27-2008, 08:21 AM
Factcheck: Eveything the D's just said is true.

Nice rebuttal, Roy.


Meh, whatever, you can't communicate to an Obot, they are already programmed, so I'm not trying. I just having fun watching many of them short circuit with their leader falling in the polls . Election day is going to be classic if things keep going as they are going .....

BigChiefFan
08-27-2008, 08:23 AM
Great point, Roy-it might have been easier to say you were wrong.

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 08:26 AM
Good post, Roy. Don't listen to the haters. They don't like their misleading spin being unspun like this.

You have gone down so far.

Duck Dog
08-27-2008, 08:27 AM
Meh, whatever, you can't communicate to an Obot, they are already programmed, so I'm not trying. I just having fun watching many of them short circuit with their leader falling in the polls . Election day is going to be classic if things keep going as they are going .....

Keep this thread in mind when the moonbats start freaking over what is said at the RNC.

ROYC75
08-27-2008, 08:33 AM
Great point, Roy-it might have been easier to say you were wrong.

Wrong ? Hardly ! It is true than some of what they stated was true, they did in fact twist the comments to their own preferences. Politics in general , BOTH PARTIES does this!

All Dems want to do is complain about smear, fear politics , stretching the truth
but yet they use it , IT IS OK ?

The facts are the democrats and the republicans have difference in opinions
of how to change the economy, administrative policies, etc. But to stretch the truth to ones preferences is nothing more than lying about the truth, POLITICS AS USUAL....

The democratic party is cynical bunch of crybabies.

dirk digler
08-27-2008, 08:33 AM
I am not going to pile on Roy both parties fudge the facts to get their message across that is why most people don't trust either political party or the candidates.

ROYC75
08-27-2008, 08:36 AM
I am not going to pile on Roy both parties fudge the facts to get their message across that is why most people don't trust either political party or the candidates.

:thumb:

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 08:38 AM
I am not going to pile on Roy both parties fudge the facts to get their message across that is why most people don't trust either political party or the candidates.

So, really, all Roy does is post some obviousness or he posts shit he can't back up and won't answer questions about?

dirk digler
08-27-2008, 08:41 AM
So, really, all Roy does is post some obviousness or he posts shit he can't back up and won't answer questions about?

The article is from the AP not some whack blog.

Both parties and candidates do this and next week the Republicans will come out and distort Obama's plan and record this isn't something new.

Chiefnj2
08-27-2008, 08:42 AM
It looks like everything that was said was truthful.

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 08:42 AM
The article is from the AP not some whack blog.

Both parties and candidates do this and next week the Republicans will come out and distort Obama's plan and record this isn't something new.

Right, so this thread is obviousness. Most of his threads are retardedness.

bkkcoh
08-27-2008, 08:42 AM
It would be nice to hear what the candidate is honestly going to try to do and how he differs from the opponent instead of cutting down the opponent.

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 08:45 AM
It looks like everything that was said was truthful.

Actually, this might be true.

His analysis in a few posts above is hilarious.

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 08:45 AM
It would be nice to hear what the candidate is honestly going to try to do and how he differs from the opponent instead of cutting down the opponent.

The candidate can't control everyone in his party from saying things.

ROYC75
08-27-2008, 08:46 AM
So, really, all Roy does is post some obviousness or he posts shit he can't back up and won't answer questions about?

Right there , some times you Obots do not see the obvious.

As for backing up, I gave the link, anything I can answer, I will. FTR, I do get busy from time to time, when I break away from this PC to attend to business, it's because I have too.

Wont answer ? See previous comments.

Speak what is on your mind Obot # 14,456,678 .

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 08:47 AM
Right there , some times you Obots do not see the obvious.

As for backing up, I gave the link, anything I can answer, I will. FTR, I do get busy from time to time, when I break away from this PC to attend to business, it's because I have too.

Wont answer ? See previous comments.

Speak what is on your mind Obot # 14,456,678 .

First, not an Obot, if you were paying attention.

Second, you still haven't given me a list of qualities and experiences one must have to be qualified for the POTUS.

ROYC75
08-27-2008, 08:48 AM
Right, so this thread is obviousness. Most of his threads are retardedness.

Why, does it go against what is programmed in your memory ?

Why can't it just be, difference in opinions ? Never mind, the 1st statement cleared it up.

DaKCMan AP
08-27-2008, 08:48 AM
Wrong ? Hardly ! It is true than some of what they stated was true, they did in fact twist the comments to their own preferences. Politics in general , BOTH PARTIES does this!

All Dems want to do is complain about smear, fear politics , stretching the truth
but yet they use it , IT IS OK ?

The facts are the democrats and the republicans have difference in opinions
of how to change the economy, administrative policies, etc. But to stretch the truth to ones preferences is nothing more than lying about the truth, POLITICS AS USUAL....

The democratic party is cynical bunch of crybabies.

:stupid:

Ladies and gentleman, I give you exhibit A on why the U.S. educational system needs to be reformed. That's pretty unintelligible.

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 08:50 AM
Why, does it go against what is programmed in your memory ?

Why can't it just be, difference in opinions ? Never mind, the 1st statement cleared it up.

Well, let's see. The facts they said about the statements were true. Your interpretation of the facts was skewed.

In a thread where you want people to see that BOTH parties are guilty and that you want to see that change, it is interesting that you'd continue to do the same partisan bullshit. "Obots", "it goes against your programmed memory", "short circuit with their leader".

Hilarity and irony.

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 08:50 AM
:stupid:

Ladies and gentleman, I give you exhibit A on why the U.S. educational system needs to be reformed. That's pretty unintelligible.

Where's DeezNuts to combat this allegation?

dirk digler
08-27-2008, 08:56 AM
Most of his threads are retardedness.

He is not the only one

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 09:00 AM
SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON of NEW YORK: "John McCain wants to privatize Social Security."

THE FACTS: The Republican-sponsored plans McCain has supported over the years would privatize part of Social Security by letting workers invest some of their payroll taxes into private retirement accounts. In the past, McCain has proposed that up to 20 percent of payroll taxes be funneled into private retirement accounts for younger workers. He recently said all solutions for the funding crisis facing Social Security "are on the table."

McCain is looking for a solution to a problem, BTA, it is your money he wants you to keep . This is a problem ?

I happen to agree with the other side on this one. I think SS needs to be privatized or else done away with. I hate paying my money for someone else's retirement. However, it doesn't look like they distorted anything here.

_SEN. ROBERT CASEY JR. of PENNSYLVANIA: "John McCain calls himself a maverick, but he votes with George Bush 90 percent of the time. That's not a maverick. That's a sidekick."

_PENNSYLVANIA GOV. ED RENDELL: "And guess who voted with President Bush 90 percent of the time? Sen. John McCain."

THE FACTS: McCain voted with President Bush 90 percent of the time from January 20, 2001, to when Congress left Washington on its annual August recess, according to a study by Congressional Quarterly. But McCain wasn't always a staunch Bush backer. In 2005, his support for Bush's position on legislation reached a low of 77 percent; last year, when he launched his latest bid for the GOP presidential nomination, he voted with Bush 95 percent of the time.

But those #'s do not add up to 90% for all the years. Look at it this way, I'm sure there has never been a democrat senator with a 90% voting record with a democrat president ? Right ?

Again, the facts seem to back up the statements. Notice that neither statement said what year he voted 90% of the time. Nor did either one say he voted 90% of the time throughout his career.

Your analysis doesn't make their statements false nor does it make the facts untrue.

_IOWA GOV. CHET CULVER: "Now the oil companies are placing their bets on John McCain, bankrolling his campaign, and gambling with our future."

THE FACTS: McCain has received more than $1.5 million in contributions from oil and gas industry employees and their spouses, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Obama has received about $423,000. But the center's analysis found that Obama has received more than McCain from employees of the oil industry's major companies. Employees (and their spouses) of Exxon, Chevron and BP had given more than $93,000 to Obama as of the end of June; McCain had received $75,000, according to the study.

All business, not just oil and gas companies. Damned the torpedoes that McCain wants American business to be profitable to give the consumer better jobs. Cutting their profits weakens the companies and lost jobs. All companies......

Again, the facts back it up. McCain has been given more money by anyone affiliated with oil than Obama. I don't see the lie here. I don't see the spin.

Further, your analysis is hilarious. That's the spin? That all companies give more money to McCain. Isn't that something people got tired of? Doesn't that help Obama?

_RENDELL: Said the fact that top McCain advisers have lobbied for oil and gas companies "explains why he wants to give another $4 billion tax break to oil companies."

THE FACTS: The $4 billion in tax breaks for oil companies is part of McCain's plan to reduce corporate taxes overall and does not represent an additional tax benefit for these companies. The corporate reduction McCain has proposed would apply to all corporations, including oil companies.

Cutting their profits weakens the companies and lost jobs. All companies

So, the facts back up the statement once again. Your analysis is hilarious once again. Income tax cuts the profits of the American worker. All workers.


_MONTANA GOV. BRIAN SCHWEITZER: "At a time when America should be working harder than ever to develop new, clean sources, John McCain wants more of the same and has taken more than a million dollars in campaign donations from the oil and gas industry. Now he wants to give the oil companies another $4 billion in tax breaks. Four billion in tax breaks for big oil?"


THE FACTS: McCain has collected $1.5 million from that industry. But it's a small slice of the $142 million McCain has raised so far in the campaign, ranking 11th on his donor list. Ahead of the oil and gas industry are lawyers, retirees, banking and securities interests, real estate and insurance.

Not true, some of the same things Obama wants to do is the same thing McCain wants, which I might add is some of the current things we are doing now. McCain knows nuclear energy is the way to go, Obama wants no part of it. Both candidates have issues here to resolve, it's not just a one way street for Obama as the only plan that will work. Both includes trial and error methods for future savings that Americans must make some sacrifices for, Obama wants you to make a bigger sacrifice by not softening the oil demand , right away.

The facts in this case deflect even though the statements made are correct. And your analysis is, well, I don't even know. It's so muddled I don't even think YOU know.

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 09:01 AM
He is not the only one

See my rebuttal above to his post above.

ROYC75
08-27-2008, 09:09 AM
First, not an Obot, if you were paying attention.

Second, you still haven't given me a list of qualities and experiences one must have to be qualified for the POTUS.

Look, I gave that to you the other day, but just in case you missed it, again, here it is.

You have your basic rules that the says legal citizen, blah blah blah.

Then it comes down to the individual voter, what his / her preferences are. I want my POTUS to be well advised and capable of handling worldly issues, either experienced with the economy or been associated in it long enough to to choose a good staff to provide him / her with it. One who stands up for American freedom, able to help America free itself from independent countries, dependable with a proven track record of attack broad range of social issues that arise within our country. One who will help keep our borders safe , a dependable, stable man / woman who will help keep Americans values and morals at bay, dealing with congress and being able have bi-partisanship for the good of the country.

I could go on, I'm busy, you want more, you can wait on it.

But I do recall I asked you the same thing ....... CAN YOU ANSWER ?

Oh, if you don't have a # yet , one has been reserved for you. :D

Taco John
08-27-2008, 09:11 AM
It is absolutely true that McCain's plan to privatize social security is incredibly weak.

ROYC75
08-27-2008, 09:23 AM
I happen to agree with the other side on this one. I think SS needs to be privatized or else done away with. I hate paying my money for someone else's retirement. However, it doesn't look like they distorted anything here.

But most people do not want this. Reality is, all I stated was ,MCCain wants to find a solution, just like Obama wants to do.



Again, the facts seem to back up the statements. Notice that neither statement said what year he voted 90% of the time. Nor did either one say he voted 90% of the time throughout his career.

Your analysis doesn't make their statements false nor does it make the facts untrue.

Sure you can pick one year, but that doesn't make the candidates overall service to the people who elected him. McCain has stepped across the isles many times in his service of congress. His record stands as well as any democrat in bi - bipartisan politics.



Again, the facts back it up. McCain has been given more money by anyone affiliated with oil than Obama. I don't see the lie here. I don't see the spin.

Further, your analysis is hilarious. That's the spin? That all companies give more money to McCain. Isn't that something people got tired of? Doesn't that help Obama?
So, the facts back up the statement once again. Your analysis is hilarious once again. Income tax cuts the profits of the American worker. All workers.

Sure, Oil companies , all business's want to keep profitable, Obama wants to tax them more, thus putting them at risk of financial difficulty, possibly allowing for a reduction of jobs , benefits, etc. I would rather much work for a company that was stable, secure and not worry about losing my job.



The facts in this case deflect even though the statements made are correct. And your analysis is, well, I don't even know. It's so muddled I don't even think YOU know.

Facts that were distorted to suit the democratic need, again, it's nothing new, it's the American politicians way The only thing that is muddled is the constant line of BS politicians feed Americans. Something, YOU don't know .

ROYC75
08-27-2008, 09:26 AM
It is absolutely true that McCain's plan to privatize social security is incredibly weak.

I only said he wants to find a solution, like the economy, I trust McCain will pick his cabinet with strong leaders to help in certain areas , as would " The One ".

It still comes down to a persoanal choice to the voter.......

bkkcoh
08-27-2008, 09:27 AM
...
SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON of NEW YORK: "John McCain wants to privatize Social Security."

THE FACTS: The Republican-sponsored plans McCain has supported over the years would privatize part of Social Security by letting workers invest some of their payroll taxes into private retirement accounts. In the past, McCain has proposed that up to 20 percent of payroll taxes be funneled into private retirement accounts for younger workers. He recently said all solutions for the funding crisis facing Social Security "are on the table."

...

Sure sounds like an over exaggeration on Hillary's part. Especially if it was an option for privatize 20%.

Find 'Option to invest 20% of payroll taxes in private accounts' (http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/John_McCain_Social_Security.htm)

DaKCMan AP
08-27-2008, 09:28 AM
I only said he wants to find a solution, like the economy, I trust McCain will pick his cabinet with strong leaders to help in certain areas , as would " The One ".

It still comes down to a persoanal choice to the voter.......

eww..

ROYC75
08-27-2008, 09:28 AM
Sure sounds like an over exaggeration on Hillary's part. Especially if it was an option for privatize 20%.

Find 'Option to invest 20% of payroll taxes in private accounts' (http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/John_McCain_Social_Security.htm)

20% becomes the majority to some, but hey, what do we now ?

ROYC75
08-27-2008, 09:29 AM
eww..

Blah blah, how much is my fine ?

DaKCMan AP
08-27-2008, 09:31 AM
Blah blah, how much is my fine ?

You can't put a price on being literate.

BigChiefFan
08-27-2008, 09:49 AM
Roy, in some posts, you seem sincere in picking the right candidate, in other posts, you seem Hell bent on twisting the truth to support a McCain camp. It looks like you've already made up your mind and now your seeking some kind of justification for selling our souls down the river with more of the same, McCain. Seek the truth and quit towing the party line.

patteeu
08-27-2008, 09:49 AM
This is not a positive for McCain. It's like they confused the point of the that he voted with Bush 90 percent of the time. The exact number being 90 isn't the issue, it's that he voted with Bush a whole lot, sometimes more than 90 percent, and these numbers verify that.

Where does that 90% put him compared to other GOP Senators? I'd bet he's in the bottom half. Frankly, it's a low number for a Senator from the party of his President.

patteeu
08-27-2008, 09:50 AM
You have gone down so far.

Who was this mythical me that so many people seem to remember?

patteeu
08-27-2008, 09:51 AM
It looks like everything that was said was truthful.

Almost right. Half-truthful is the actual verdict of the OP article.

mlyonsd
08-27-2008, 09:54 AM
Roy, in some posts, you seem sincere in picking the right candidate, in other posts, you seem Hell bent on twisting the truth to support a McCain camp. It looks like you've already made up your mind and now your seeking some kind of justification for selling our souls down the river with more of the same, McCain. Seek the truth and quit towing the party line.

Holy crap you can't make that stuff up. :LOL:

Tell me, how do you reconcile seeking the truth with already having made up your mind?

BigChiefFan
08-27-2008, 09:56 AM
Holy crap you can't make that stuff up. :LOL:

Tell me, how do you reconcile seeking the truth with already having made up your mind?
I sought the truth a long time ago, but thanks for trying to discredit me with mockery. Good stuff!

mlyonsd
08-27-2008, 09:58 AM
I sought the truth a long time ago, but thanks for trying to discredit me with mockery. Good stuff!

As long as you realize you're doing the same thing you accuse Roy of I'm good with it.

ROYC75
08-27-2008, 09:58 AM
Holy crap you can't make that stuff up. :LOL:

Tell me, how do you reconcile seeking the truth with already having made up your mind?

I'm being regulated by others who know me better than I know myself ?



Only on CP ,Only on CP .......

Chief Henry
08-27-2008, 10:10 AM
I'm being regulated by others who know me better than I know myself ?



Only on CP ,Only on CP .......

Its because the almight "O" is sending out text messages at 3am each morning :evil: Its giving his followers the daily vibes they need to stay brainwashed to the almighty Greek God/Messiah that he'll portray himself to be Thursday night infront of the 77,000 lambs at Pile High stadium.

ROYC75
08-27-2008, 10:16 AM
You can't put a price on being literate.

So how much did it cost you to become a jerk ? :D

Chiefnj2
08-27-2008, 10:27 AM
Its because the almight "O" is sending out text messages at 3am each morning :evil: Its giving his followers the daily vibes they need to stay brainwashed to the almighty Greek God/Messiah that he'll portray himself to be Thursday night infront of the 77,000 lambs at Pile High stadium.

Since the Republicans are the party of the religious right, isn't it a sin to call Obama the "messiah" and take the lord's name in vain? Bunch of heathens.

alpha_omega
08-27-2008, 10:31 AM
This is politics....who needs facts?!?!?!?

ROYC75
08-27-2008, 10:33 AM
Since the Republicans are the party of the religious right, isn't it a sin to call Obama the "messiah" and take the lord's name in vain? Bunch of heathens.

Warning : Misconception .......Religion is amongst all parties.


As for calling him the messiah, you stand correct on this issue. FTR, As for myself, I have only stated him as " The One", which was coined by Oprah or called him the " Oprah Winfrey Candidate " .

DaKCMan AP
08-27-2008, 11:32 AM
Where does that 90% put him compared to other GOP Senators? I'd bet he's in the bottom half. Frankly, it's a low number for a Senator from the party of his President.

That's the point. This country needs to elect someone who's not a Senator from the party of the current President.

beer bacon
08-27-2008, 11:59 AM
Factchecks usually correct something using facts. The article posted as the topic of this thread is a spin job. Facts aren't being denied. Some hack is just trying to put his spin on what someone else said.

bkkcoh
08-27-2008, 12:03 PM
20% becomes the majority to some, but hey, what do we now ?

But keep in mind, she is from the same party that thinks a 3 percent increase instead of a 5 percent increase is an actual cut in spending.....

ROYC75
08-27-2008, 12:04 PM
That's the point. This country needs to elect someone who's not a Senator from the party of the current President.

So a senator from the party that holds the house is the ticket ?

Kind of one sided isn't it. Shouldn't the people vote this , not the parties.

ROYC75
08-27-2008, 12:06 PM
Factchecks usually correct something using facts. The article posted as the topic of this thread is a spin job. Facts aren't being denied. Some hack is just trying to put his spin on what someone else said.


More like the democrats want reverse spin from the column.

You'll get your chance next week, enjoy the ride. All of us are getting a big BJ from the 2 parties involved.

beer bacon
08-27-2008, 12:08 PM
More like the democrats want reverse spin from the column.

You'll get your chance next week, enjoy the ride. All of us are getting a big BJ from the 2 parties involved.

You are going to get called out whenever you ignorant bullshit and try to pass it off as truth. We don't need another honestchieffan filling the forum with horrible threads on a regular basis.

ROYC75
08-27-2008, 12:09 PM
But keep in mind, she is from the same party that thinks a 3 percent increase instead of a 5 percent increase is an actual cut in spending.....

Most people take what the candidate says for face value, reality is it should taken with a grain of salt and dissected until that voter can get a better vision of the candidates.

Voters should be open minded but is usually clouded by the partisan ways within that party he / she is associated with.

ROYC75
08-27-2008, 12:11 PM
You are going to get called out whenever you ignorant bullshit and try to pass it off as truth. We don't need another honestchieffan filling the forum with horrible threads on a regular basis.

Called out, for what, stating the democrats distort the truth, just as republicans do ?

WOW .......:rolleyes:

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 12:13 PM
Look, I gave that to you the other day, but just in case you missed it, again, here it is.

No, this is new. You previously ended with the statement you started your paragraph with: "Then it comes down to the individual voter, what his / her preferences are."

You have your basic rules that the says legal citizen, blah blah blah.

Right, the Constitution.

Then it comes down to the individual voter, what his / her preferences are. I want my POTUS to be well advised and capable of handling worldly issues, either experienced with the economy or been associated in it long enough to to choose a good staff to provide him / her with it.

What is "well advised" and "capable of handling worldly issues"? Two abstracts is all I can see.

"Experienced wtih the economy or has been associated in it long enough to choose a good staff to help" --- WTF? Could you be any more vague?

So far, you have not eliminated any candidate. In fact, you should be a big supporter of both candidates, but you are not.


One who stands up for American freedom, able to help America free itself from independent countries,

Like? Israel?

dependable with a proven track record of attack broad range of social issues that arise within our country.

Like? Can you be more vague?


One who will help keep our borders safe

Hey a specific - or as close to one as you'll see!

a dependable, stable man / woman who will help keep Americans values and morals at bay

At bay? Are you educated? Why would you want to keep the values and morals at bay?


dealing with congress and being able have bi-partisanship for the good of the country.

So, you have described both Obama and McCain?


I could go on, I'm busy, you want more, you can wait on it.

I want more specifics when you aren't busy and can give them. You have had like 5 times to do so and you still give extremely broad examples that include both candidates.


But I do recall I asked you the same thing ....... CAN YOU ANSWER ?

Oh, if you don't have a # yet , one has been reserved for you. :D

I'll answer in the spirit of your "answers": I want them to be a good listener and policy maker.



Facts that were distorted to suit the democratic need, again, it's nothing new, it's the American politicians way The only thing that is muddled is the constant line of BS politicians feed Americans. Something, YOU don't know .

No. They were not distorted. The fact check came back as they were true. They did clarify some things. It is your INTERPRETATION and EXTRAPOLATION that has led to a distorted view.

beer bacon
08-27-2008, 12:13 PM
Called out, for what, stating the democrats distort the truth, just as republicans do ?

WOW .......:rolleyes:

When was the last time you posted a thread that reflected negatively on the Republicans or a Republican politician?

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 12:14 PM
When was the last time you posted a thread that reflected negatively on the Republicans or a Republican politician?

Roy - Fair and Balanced!

mlyonsd
08-27-2008, 12:24 PM
The only thing of real significance I find interesting is Exxon, Chevron, and BP employees have given more money to Obama then McCain.

ROYC75
08-27-2008, 12:32 PM
No, this is new. You previously ended with the statement you started your paragraph with: "Then it comes down to the individual voter, what his / her preferences are."



Right, the Constitution.



What is "well advised" and "capable of handling worldly issues"? Two abstracts is all I can see.

"Experienced wtih the economy or has been associated in it long enough to choose a good staff to help" --- WTF? Could you be any more vague?

So far, you have not eliminated any candidate. In fact, you should be a big supporter of both candidates, but you are not.



Like? Israel?



Like? Can you be more vague?




Hey a specific - or as close to one as you'll see!



At bay? Are you educated? Why would you want to keep the values and morals at bay?




So, you have described both Obama and McCain?



I want more specifics when you aren't busy and can give them. You have had like 5 times to do so and you still give extremely broad examples that include both candidates.



I'll answer in the spirit of your "answers": I want them to be a good listener and policy maker.





No. They were not distorted. The fact check came back as they were true. They did clarify some things. It is your INTERPRETATION and EXTRAPOLATION that has led to a distorted view.

Just a difference in opinions , that's all . I wish we could sit down over a 6 pack and discuss this , but it is not possible at this time.

We agree to disagree, you takes to me is nothing more than an opinion between 2 diehard party voters. You don't buy nothing a republican says about a democrat. I on the other hand can clearly see wrong on both sides.

ROYC75
08-27-2008, 12:34 PM
The only thing of real significance I find interesting is Exxon, Chevron, and BP employees have given more money to Obama then McCain.

I find that rather odd, it would seem that they would want McCain since he wants the oil companies to be profitable and not be in jeapordy of losing their jobs.

Maybe we can get a democrat to enlighten us ?

InChiefsHell
08-27-2008, 12:37 PM
I will be. I promise.

I'm a registered Independent and I'm seriously looking for the best candidate to lead this country out of its current mess, both domestically and internationally.

It's easy to read through bullshit if you just open your eyes and READ.

Sooo...basically you don't have anyone to vote for then right?:D

beer bacon
08-27-2008, 12:40 PM
The only thing of real significance I find interesting is Exxon, Chevron, and BP employees have given more money to Obama then McCain.

It is misleading. For example, On June 10th, one week before McCain flip-flopped on offshore oil drilling, senior executives and family members of the Hess Oil Company donated $285,000 to McCain/RNC. Now, only a small fraction of that technically goes to the McCain campaign because of finance laws, but all the rest that went to the RNC is also being used to get McCain elected. The RNC has stated that all other GOP politicians are on their own this election, since their money is going towards McCain.

mlyonsd
08-27-2008, 12:41 PM
It is misleading. For example, On June 10th, one week before McCain flip-flopped on offshore oil drilling, senior executives and family members of the Hess Oil Company donated $285,000 to McCain/RNC. Now, only a small fraction of that technically goes to the McCain campaign because of finance laws, but all the rest that went to the RNC is also being used to get McCain elected. The RNC has stated that all other GOP politicians are on their own this election, since their money is going towards McCain.

Thanks, I did not know that.

Duck Dog
08-27-2008, 12:50 PM
When was the last time you posted a thread that reflected negatively on the Republicans or a Republican politician?

When was the last time you posed that question to both Democrats and Republicans?

ROYC75
08-27-2008, 12:54 PM
When was the last time you posted a thread that reflected negatively on the Republicans or a Republican politician?

To be honest, I don't know, if even ever. I don't recall, not recently. FTR, I do have some problems at time with republicans, even now. General politics sucks, always have. It will never change.

How about you, same question ?

Amnorix
08-27-2008, 12:55 PM
Factcheck: "Facts are sometimes annoying. What the Democrats said about McCain were, you know, factually accurate and all, but there's a good excuse or explanation for all those annoying facts. Let's discuss."

Right. This is about the worst refutation I've ever seen.

DaneMcCloud
08-27-2008, 12:58 PM
Sooo...basically you don't have anyone to vote for then right?:D

In the 20 years (now 24) I've been eligible to vote, I've voted Republican five times and Democrat once (2004). I've been registered as an independent during the entire time, but clearly I've leaned one way more than the other.

I think that's more to do with the actual candidate as opposed to a political party.

This year is probably the most important vote in my lifetime because of the state of the country, especially the economy. I've always liked John McCain and his "renegade" Republican personality but I have serious doubts as to whether he'll be able to finish his term.

The office of the Presidency has worn on every elected President and his age scares me. His choice of a running mate is of paramount importance to me.

DaneMcCloud
08-27-2008, 12:59 PM
Factcheck: "Facts are sometimes annoying. What the Democrats said about McCain were, you know, factually accurate and all, but there's a good excuse or explanation for all those annoying facts. Let's discuss."

Right. This is about the worst refutation I've ever seen.

QFFT

J Diddy
08-27-2008, 01:00 PM
Factcheck: "Facts are sometimes annoying. What the Democrats said about McCain were, you know, factually accurate and all, but there's a good excuse or explanation for all those annoying facts. Let's discuss."

Right. This is about the worst refutation I've ever seen.

Hey cut em some slack.

After the writers strike all the good writers are backlogged.

InChiefsHell
08-27-2008, 01:06 PM
In the 20 years (now 24) I've been eligible to vote, I've voted Republican five times and Democrat once (2004). I've been registered as an independent during the entire time, but clearly I've leaned one way more than the other.

I think that's more to do with the actual candidate as opposed to a political party.

This year is probably the most important vote in my lifetime because of the state of the country, especially the economy. I've always liked John McCain and his "renegade" Republican personality but I have serious doubts as to whether he'll be able to finish his term.

The office of the Presidency has worn on every elected President and his age scares me. His choice of a running mate is of paramount importance to me.

For me, it's more about a philosophy, namely a conservative philosophy. I don't have a conservative candidate (haven't for quite awhile, come to think of it) and I'm tired of the fact that every election cycle, the Republican candidate becomes less and less conservative. Case and point, McCain. I don't hate the dude, but he's not a big conservative, and he's kinda proud of that. Obama is a left-lefty-McLeftist (and hey, good for him, at least he means it) so he's way the hell off of my radar screen...

DaneMcCloud
08-27-2008, 01:15 PM
I'm a fiscal conservative who's moderate to liberal regarding social issues.

That's a tough combination to find in a general election. At least in 2008.

bkkcoh
08-27-2008, 01:20 PM
Most people take what the candidate says for face value, reality is it should taken with a grain of salt and dissected until that voter can get a better vision of the candidates.

Voters should be open minded but is usually clouded by the partisan ways within that party he / she is associated with.

No wonder negative ads work then. Especially when it is because of something they have done legislatively.

Very true. Very true.

'Hamas' Jenkins
08-27-2008, 02:14 PM
Roy, let's try this again, slowly.


This "fact check" article took umbrage with the claims that the Democrats made last night. Meanwhile, if you actually read the article, the author himself said that all of their claims were correct.

Let me give you an example. If I say that Carson Palmer completes 70% of his passes, and that is his career #, you call me a liar. Why? Because in 2005, he completed 63% of his passes. You are omitting a huge chunk of what made up my original claim and purposely distorting the facts in support of your own "fact check". That's a form of selection bias, and it is a logical fallacy.

The entire article does this. It's not spin, it's right in front of your face. The only reason people are mocking you is because you aren't showing the requisite reading skills to actually peruse the article and you are spending more time defending your stance than you are actually seeing if it is worth defending.

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 02:26 PM
Just a difference in opinions , that's all . I wish we could sit down over a 6 pack and discuss this , but it is not possible at this time.

We agree to disagree, you takes to me is nothing more than an opinion between 2 diehard party voters. You don't buy nothing a republican says about a democrat. I on the other hand can clearly see wrong on both sides.

Actually, I like a lot of Republican policies. Smaller government in many areas is one of them.

I just don't see you playing the middle when you want everyone else to.

When was the last time you posed that question to both Democrats and Republicans?

Duck Dog, FTL. Did you mean to direct that question to yourself?

InChiefsHell
08-27-2008, 02:31 PM
I'm a fiscal conservative who's moderate to liberal regarding social issues.

That's a tough combination to find in a general election. At least in 2008.

Funny, to me that sound pretty much like John McCain...:evil:

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 02:35 PM
Just a difference in opinions , that's all . I wish we could sit down over a 6 pack and discuss this , but it is not possible at this time.

We agree to disagree, you takes to me is nothing more than an opinion between 2 diehard party voters. You don't buy nothing a republican says about a democrat. I on the other hand can clearly see wrong on both sides.

ROFL ROFL ROFL

I just found that and it is hilarious.

Also I might add that do you not have a comment on the "at bay" part?

ROYC75
08-27-2008, 02:42 PM
Roy, let's try this again, slowly.


This "fact check" article took umbrage with the claims that the Democrats made last night. Meanwhile, if you actually read the article, the author himself said that all of their claims were correct.

Let me give you an example. If I say that Carson Palmer completes 70% of his passes, and that is his career #, you call me a liar. Why? Because in 2005, he completed 63% of his passes. You are omitting a huge chunk of what made up my original claim and purposely distorting the facts in support of your own "fact check". That's a form of selection bias, and it is a logical fallacy.

The entire article does this. It's not spin, it's right in front of your face. The only reason people are mocking you is because you aren't showing the requisite reading skills to actually peruse the article and you are spending more time defending your stance than you are actually seeing if it is worth defending.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080827/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_factcheck_4;_ylt=AsrbtqRGcJNhjswASE.4Qa1h24cA

But in some instances, they weren't the whole story either.

Some examples of who said what and what they left out:



It's how the article is written, I agree that the truth wasn't explained, but some info was only pointed by the dems out to use for their preference.

Seriously, this is normal, It's standard, usual politics between the parties. No candidate or party will ever, I said will ever make a statement and then throw up a disclaimer for their respected parties to hear and read.

ROYC75
08-27-2008, 02:45 PM
ROFL ROFL ROFL

I just found that and it is hilarious.

Also I might add that do you not have a comment on the "at bay" part?

Does the Monica Lewinski story ring a bell ? Values, morals that our POTUS must set as an example to the public, namely our children ?

Leaders are to lead by example ........

You knew what I meant by at bay ....... wasn't that hard to figure out.

DaneMcCloud
08-27-2008, 02:56 PM
It's how the article is written, I agree that the truth wasn't explained

If this is a true statement, why bother posting it? Do you enjoy being bashed?

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 03:16 PM
Does the Monica Lewinski story ring a bell ? Values, morals that our POTUS must set as an example to the public, namely our children ?

Leaders are to lead by example ........

You knew what I meant by at bay ....... wasn't that hard to figure out.

No, I don't know what you meant by at bay. Do you rely on people to translate your idiocy all the time?

So, you think a BJ has something to do with someone's ability to lead?

ROYC75
08-27-2008, 03:18 PM
If this is a true statement, why bother posting it? Do you enjoy being bashed?

Crap, bashing doesn't bother me, I have broad shoulders and thick skin.

I believed that the whole truth wasn't brought out in the democrats comments, they never are. They will never attach a disclaimer to their comments, No politician will do this.

Crap, we get to go thru this stuff again next week. Both parties are guilty for doing it. It doe not bother me if a democrat cries wolf about a comment by a republican, I find it funny that many democrats cry wolf about the republican comments, ads, etc but fail to see their own lies and twisted comments.

I have to admit, I do see more anger this year in the democratic party. With them being divided right now, it's a lot easier to get on their nerves.

DaneMcCloud
08-27-2008, 03:18 PM
No, I don't know what you meant by at bay. Do you rely on people to translate your idiocy all the time?

So, you think a BJ has something to do with someone's ability to lead?

I can answer that: Yes, he does.

Personally, I thought that Kenneth Star, wasting more than $40 million of the taxpayers money, was a MUCH larger crime than getting a blowjob and then denying it.

And I voted against Clinton. TWICE.

DaneMcCloud
08-27-2008, 03:20 PM
Crap, bashing doesn't bother me, I have broad shoulders and thick skin.

I believed that the whole truth wasn't brought out in the democrats comments, they never are. They will never attach a disclaimer to their comments, No politician will do this.

Crap, we get to go thru this stuff again next week. Both parties are guilty for doing it. It doe not bother me if a democrat cries wolf about a comment by a republican, I find it funny that many democrats cry wolf about the republican comments, ads, etc but fail to see their own lies and twisted comments.

I have to admit, I do see more anger this year in the democratic party. With them being divided right now, it's a lot easier to get on their nerves.

Roy, the "party" didn't write the article. A writer wrote that article. If you're going to link such inaccurate drivel, whether it's from the Republican view or Democrat's view, you should expect to be bashed for doing so.

Making an excuse like "they all do it" doesn't exonerate your participation in their sham.

ROYC75
08-27-2008, 03:21 PM
No, I don't know what you meant by at bay. Do you rely on people to translate your idiocy all the time?

So, you think a BJ has something to do with someone's ability to lead?

You have the gull ask this with Bill Clinton ? He had issues before the elections started. The American public dropped their guard down with family values and morals when electing him.

FTR, No I wasn't impressed with Clinton , as many others were.

ROYC75
08-27-2008, 03:24 PM
Roy, the "party" didn't write the article. A writer wrote that article. If you're going to link such inaccurate drivel, whether it's from the Republican view or Democrat's view, you should expect to be bashed for doing so.

Making an excuse like "they all do it" doesn't exonerate your participation in their sham.

Where did I say the party wrote the article. A writer did indeed write it , based on the views by the republican party or it's base of voters.

It's true, both major parties do distort the truth to get their point across to their parties and voters .

DaneMcCloud
08-27-2008, 03:46 PM
Where did I say the party wrote the article. A writer did indeed write it , based on the views by the republican party or it's base of voters.

It's true, both major parties do distort the truth to get their point across to their parties and voters .

The "Dems" didn't spin it to suit their own needs. The Republicans spun it to suit their needs.

Amnorix
08-27-2008, 03:47 PM
I'm a fiscal conservative who's moderate to liberal regarding social issues.

That's a tough combination to find in a general election. At least in 2008.


Ditto, and it's tough to find in any election at all.

DaneMcCloud
08-27-2008, 03:49 PM
You have the gull ask this with Bill Clinton ? He had issues before the elections started. The American public dropped their guard down with family values and morals when electing him.

FTR, No I wasn't impressed with Clinton , as many others were.

The word is "gall", not gull.

Secondly, the American public didn't "drop their guard". JFC.

Americans voted 370 electoral votes to GHB's 168. Americans were tired of the effects of "trickle down economics" and the recession. Americans were ready for a change.

Much like 2008.

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 04:04 PM
The word is "gall", not gull.

Secondly, the American public didn't "drop their guard". JFC.

Americans voted 370 electoral votes to GHB's 168. Americans were tired of the effects of "trickle down economics" and the recession. Americans were ready for a change.

Much like 2008.

Does it get tired listening to him when he doesn't sound educated in the first place?

ROYC75
08-27-2008, 04:07 PM
Does it get tired listening to him when he doesn't sound educated in the first place?

You can always leave when you wish,but you keep coming back for more. Either accept it or move on ......It's no big deal .

ROYC75
08-27-2008, 04:10 PM
The word is "gall", not gull.

Secondly, the American public didn't "drop their guard". JFC.

Americans voted 370 electoral votes to GHB's 168. Americans were tired of the effects of "trickle down economics" and the recession. Americans were ready for a change.

Much like 2008.

Sorry, my 2nd fine today, how much is it ?

That's what I am saying, Americans overlooked Clinton's affairs before his presidency and still elected him president. They dropped or let down their guard in family values and morals to elect him .

DaneMcCloud
08-27-2008, 04:20 PM
Sorry, my 2nd fine today, how much is it ?

That's what I am saying, Americans overlooked Clinton's affairs before his presidency and still elected him president. They dropped or let down their guard in family values and morals to elect him .

Clinton - 43%
Bush- 37%
Perot- 18%

I don't think that there were many people who "overlooked" his morals and voted for him anyway. I think the Clinton campaign appealed to more voters than did the Bush or Perot campaigns.

I don't think it had anything to do with "overlooking" anything.

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 04:28 PM
You can always leave when you wish,but you keep coming back for more. Either accept it or move on ......It's no big deal .

I am more than willing to accept your idiocy, as long as you acknowledge it.

ROYC75
08-27-2008, 06:16 PM
Clinton - 43%
Bush- 37%
Perot- 18%

I don't think that there were many people who "overlooked" his morals and voted for him anyway. I think the Clinton campaign appealed to more voters than did the Bush or Perot campaigns.

I don't think it had anything to do with "overlooking" anything.

They did , plus the Ross Perot factor, Ross spent his money to get daddy Bush out of office .

ROYC75
08-27-2008, 06:18 PM
I am more than willing to accept your idiocy, as long as you acknowledge it.

That's not going to happen, might as well pack up . :D ;) :Poke:

DaneMcCloud
08-27-2008, 06:24 PM
They did , plus the Ross Perot factor, Ross spent his money to get daddy Bush out of office .

Roy, given the fact that Clinton didn't even receive 45% percent of the votes (let alone, 50%), it's clear that those who voted for him did not do so reluctantly.

IF there were people that had fears about his so-called "morals", those people would have voted for Bush or Perot.

tiptap
08-27-2008, 06:38 PM
Does the Monica Lewinski story ring a bell ? Values, morals that our POTUS must set as an example to the public, namely our children ?

Leaders are to lead by example ........

You knew what I meant by at bay ....... wasn't that hard to figure out.

David is held up as the great king and yet he had the husband killed to get layed. And yet you hold David as the example. Why because his administration had a positive arc for HIS COUNTRY. Therefore your moral story has absolutely no validity if you continue to praise David or the licentious Noah or Abraham or any number of other patriarchs and Kings.

ROYC75
08-27-2008, 07:00 PM
David is held up as the great king and yet he had the husband killed to get layed. And yet you hold David as the example. Why because his administration had a positive arc for HIS COUNTRY. Therefore your moral story has absolutely no validity if you continue to praise David or the licentious Noah or Abraham or any number of other patriarchs and Kings.


Old Testament .........

ROYC75
08-27-2008, 07:04 PM
Roy, given the fact that Clinton didn't even receive 45% percent of the votes (let alone, 50%), it's clear that those who voted for him did not do so reluctantly.

IF there were people that had fears about his so-called "morals", those people would have voted for Bush or Perot.

IIRC , Ross Perot took that one away...Didn't the polls show that Bush would had won enough vote to edge Clinton if Perot wasn't in the mix ? I could be wrong and have it reversed, I do recall the anger in democrats and Ross Perot .
Can Somebody clear this one up ?

I was on the road trucking at that time of year, gone a lot,really didn't pay that much attention to it.

patteeu
08-27-2008, 07:12 PM
Factchecks usually correct something using facts. The article posted as the topic of this thread is a spin job. Facts aren't being denied. Some hack is just trying to put his spin on what someone else said.

:LOL:

J Diddy
08-27-2008, 07:23 PM
You have the gull ask this with Bill Clinton ? He had issues before the elections started. The American public dropped their guard down with family values and morals when electing him.

FTR, No I wasn't impressed with Clinton , as many others were.


family values and morals?

meh

suck of the GOP Bs

|Zach|
08-27-2008, 10:38 PM
Hall Of Classics.

|Zach|
08-27-2008, 10:39 PM
You can't put a price on being literate.

ROFL

irishjayhawk
08-27-2008, 10:42 PM
ROFL

If you think that's funny, you should read half of Roy's posts.

You have the gull to laugh at that!
Presidents should keep American values at bay.