Who is Lying?

[festeringZit]

Barack Obama says that John McCain and Sarah Palin are lying about their records when dubbing themselves as the "original mavericks" who would stand up for hard-pressed voters.

Fine, Obama, you want to back that up?


Let's start with John McCain, who has a 100% approval rating on pork-barrel spending for the 2007 legislative season, according to Citizens against government waste. His lifetime score is 88%. What this basically means is that in 2007, John McCain voted with the taxpayers 100% of the time. This means that over his years in the Senate, John McCain voted with the taxpayers 88 out of every 100 votes. And when I say "with the taxpayers" I essentially mean he voted in a way that would allow taxpayers to keep their money, rather than spend it on frivolous government pork projects.


Just in case you weren't aware, Mr. Obama ... you scored a 10% rating in 2007 and an 18% lifetime rating. Oh and your running mate, Joe Biden, he actually managed to score a 0% rating in 2007. These really seem like a pair of guys that are trying to create change in Washington. These really look like the people who are looking out for you, the taxpayers.
But then it is John McCain and Sarah Palin who are lying.



When it comes to Sarah Palin, we've been through the specifics on this Bridge to Nowhere crap. In fact, the Democrat Party in Alaska acknowledges that it was Sarah Palin who finally scrapped the bridge. That website, by the way, disappeared for a while, until pressured to re-post the page (which they did, only at a different address). But just as a little side note ... guess who DID vote for the Bridge to Nowhere. Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Why doesn't the media bring THAT to your attention. Even when given a second chance to shift the funds to Katrina relief programs, Obama and Biden still voted for the Bridge to Nowhere. While John McCain did not end up voting on the amendment, he is on record opposing the earmark.
When it comes to Sarah Palin's record of reform ... let's just look at earmarks, since this is something that Palin and her Senate opponents have in common. Before Sarah Palin's time as governor, the state of Alaska used to request over 100 earmarks each year to be secured by Alaska's congressional delegation. When it came time for Sarah Palin to request her earmarks for the first time as governor ... she slashed that number by half, requesting 54 earmarks. The next year, Palin cut that number AGAIN down to just 31 earmarks. Of those 31 earmarks, 27 of these are continuous or were previously appropriated. When Palin entered the governor's office, the total amount of quests averaged $550 million a year. That number has been reduced to less than $200 million now that Palin is in office. And it would only continue to decline. One of Palin's stated goals as Governor is to ask Congress for no more than a dozen earmarks for her state. On top of all that, Palin insisted that each earmark requested by the state of Alaska demonstrate an important federal purpose and public support. Whenever possible, Palin wants to have earmarks only if they can be matched by state or local budgets. And her administration is currently re-examining previous decisions on transportation earmarks ... the Alaska Department of Transportation is conducting an audit to determine the status of every single one of its recent earmarks.



Let's go ahead and take a look at Barack Obama's earmarks in the Senate. In just three years, Barack Obama has requested over 300 earmark projects totaling $740 million. For the 2008 fiscal year alone, Obama requested 112 earmarks. Sarah Palin? 31.


Just a little something for you have mulling around in your brain as Obama gets all huffy about earmark spending. Sarah Palin actually cuts earmarks, Barack Obama says he supports earmark transparency and then requests almost $1 billion of your tax dollars to be spent on pork projects. Sarah Palin reduces the number of projects, reduces the costs, calls for projects that will only serve the nation as a whole, investigates previous earmark spending ... and yet she is the one "lying."


Remember this about The Chosen One. He is a creation of the corrupt Chicago political machine. Several times during his legislative career Obama has had the opportunity to speak out against and vote against the corruption in Chicago politics. Each and every time he failed to do so. He's a charlatan; a phony. When it came to corruption in Chicago politics change was the furthest thing from his mind. The sooner some of you people get the stars out of your eyes, abandon your childish celebrity worshipping, and see this man for what he really is the safer our country will be.

 

[t2050]

Question

Was George Bush a maverick?

 

[Dave007inVegas]

Question

Was George Bush a maverick?

George Bush is not runner for POTUS and thus he is irrelevant and so is your question.

 

[t2050]

George Bush is not runner for POTUS and thus he is irrelevant and so is your question.

go figure dodge the question, I was only interested if ppl considered him a maverick.

Same bullshiit over n over by politician "When I get to Washington I'll really shake things up BLAH BLAH BLAH"

Do you really believe any of them?

 

[Dave007inVegas]

go figure dodge the question, I was only interested if ppl considered him a maverick.

Same bullshiit over n over by politician "When I get to Washington I'll really shake things up BLAH BLAH BLAH"

Do you really believe any of them?

This question is rellivant and I will answer no.

 

[jeffry22]

Question

Was George Bush a maverick?

No, George Bush was not a "maverick", he was considered to be a washington outsider, but not a maverick.

 

[D2bets]

No, George Bush was not a "maverick", he was considered to be a washington outsider, but not a maverick.

And a compassionate conservative. :nohead:

 

[bblight]

One poster writes about actual history supported with facts.

Another poster throws out some mud supported with inuendo.

Which poster is the party line hack?

 

[t2050]

One poster writes about actual history supported with facts.

Another poster throws out some mud supported with inuendo.

Which poster is the party line hack?

you mean one poster copy/pastes I don't think fester wrote that himself or is representing such

Fact is McCain is not a fiscal conservative and will run a higher deficit than Obama.

"The Tax Policy Center estimates that over 10 years, McCain's tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion"

 

[bblight]

you mean one poster copy/pastes I don't think fester wrote that himself or is representing such

Fact is McCain is not a fiscal conservative and will run a higher deficit than Obama.

"The Tax Policy Center estimates that over 10 years, McCain's tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion"

Fact is that the President submits the Federal budget to Congress and Congress determines how much will be spent, where it will be spent and by whom it will be spent.

The President can accept the budget or veto it - he'll usually acceopt it if it has everything he's asked for.

The TPC estimates that congressional spending will remain at the same level.

McCain proposes to veto any budgets that are pork laden. If McCain cuts pork, the deficit would be greatly reducued.

Beyond saying a few nice words about how awful pork is, Obama has not made any proposals to cut pork.

 

[Dave007inVegas]

Fact is that the President submits the Federal budget to Congress and Congress determines how much will be spent, where it will be spent and by whom it will be spent.

The President can accept the budget or veto it - he'll usually acceopt it if it has everything he's asked for.

The TPC estimates that congressional spending will remain at the same level.

McCain proposes to veto any budgets that are pork laden. If McCain cuts pork, the deficit would be greatly reducued.

Beyond saying a few nice words about how awful pork is, Obama has not made any proposals to cut pork.

Without line item veto powers the Presidents hands are tied.

The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 enacted a line-item veto for the Federal Government of the United States, but its effect was brief due to judicial review.
Public Law (P.L.) 104-130 [1] was introduced by Senator Bob Dole on 4 January 1995, cosponsored by Senator John McCain and 28 other senators. Related House Bills included H.R. 147, H.R. 391, H.R. 2,H.R. 27 and H.R. 3136. The bill was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on April 9, 1996 and was immediately challenged in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by a group of six senators, first among whom was Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), where it was declared unconstitutional by District Judge Harry Jackson, a Reagan appointee, on April 10, 1997. The case was subsequently remanded by the Supreme Court of the United States with instructions to dismiss on the grounds that the senators had not suffered sufficient injury to press charges under Article III of the United States Constitution (i.e., the senators lacked standing). The case, Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997), was handed down on June 26, 1997, and did not include a judgement on the constitutional grounds of the law.
It was used against one provision of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and two provisions of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 before being challenged again in two separate cases; one by the City of New York, two hospital associations, one hospital, and two health care unions; the other by a farmers' cooperative from Idaho and an individual member of the cooperative. Senators Byrd, Moynihan, Levin, and Hatfield again opposed the law, this time through Amicus curiæ briefs.
Judge Thomas Hogan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia combined the cases and declared the law unconstitutional on February 12, 1998. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998 by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York. Justices Breyer, Scalia, and O'Connor dissented.

McCain was one of the 28 senators that cosponsored the bill.

 

[jeckll]

Come on, the fact is McCain/Palin have been saying that Palin said "thanks, but no thanks for the Bridge to Nowhere" day in and day out since last Friday.

She only "scrapped" the Bridge to Nowhere after congress had killed funding for it! So if your boss fires you from your job today, and then tomorrow you write a letter resigning, I guess technically you've resigned, but isn't that utterly misleading? If that happened, would you NOT be lying if you told a future employer you had quit, and not been fired? That's exactly what she's doing, day in and day out.

And the mainstream media is calling her on it. Newsweek, Time, CNN, even Fox and the WSJ have said it's a straight up falsehood. It's not really even up for debate...you're just changing the subject by making it about Obama/Biden.

 

[tocco05]

Come on, the fact is McCain/Palin have been saying that Palin said "thanks, but no thanks for the Bridge to Nowhere" day in and day out since last Friday.

She only "scrapped" the Bridge to Nowhere after congress had killed funding for it! So if your boss fires you from your job today, and then tomorrow you write a letter resigning, I guess technically you've resigned, but isn't that utterly misleading? If that happened, would you NOT be lying if you told a future employer you had quit, and not been fired? That's exactly what she's doing, day in and day out.

And the mainstream media is calling her on it. Newsweek, Time, CNN, even Fox and the WSJ have said it's a straight up falsehood. It's not really even up for debate...you're just changing the subject by making it about Obama/Biden.

:<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Obama and Biden Voted for Bridge to Nowhere

By John Powers, Chicago Daily Observer

Now that Alaska is front and center in the news again, it is a good time to catch up on a favorite story, The Bridge to Nowhere, using the Washington Post US Congress Votes Database.

Though Gov. Palin originally supported the earmark spending on the Ketchikan bridge (“to nowhere), she eventually killed the project, chosing to spend Federal money on other infrasturcture programs.

However, Sen. Biden and Sen. Obama voted for funding the Bridge, even when given a second chance by Sen. Tom Coburn, who proposed shifting earmark funds to Katrina relief.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

[jeckll]

Again, changing the subject. Obama and Biden are not campaigning on their alleged opposition to the Bridge to Nowhere. Palin is. None of them opposed it. Only one of them is saying she did. Ergo, one is lying. Where's the issue?

 

[tocco05]

Again, changing the subject. Obama and Biden are not campaigning on their alleged opposition to the Bridge to Nowhere. Palin is. None of them opposed it. Only one of them is saying she did. Ergo, one is lying. Where's the issue?

At the end of the day,, she said thanks, but no thanks. That's the issue, and that's what counts. Obama and Plugs both voted for it twice!!!

 

[jeckll]

At the end of the day,, she said thanks, but no thanks. That's the issue, and that's what counts. Obama and Plugs both voted for it twice!!!

OK one more time:

From the WSJ (hardly a bastion of "liberal media"):

Despite significant evidence to the contrary, the McCain campaign continues to assert that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told the federal government "thanks but no thanks" to the now-famous bridge to an island in her home state.

She endorsed the multimillion dollar project during her gubernatorial race in 2006. And while she did take part in stopping the project after it became a national scandal, she did not return the federal money. She just allocated it elsewhere.

"We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge," Gov. Palin said in August 2006, according to the local newspaper, "and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that's so negative."

At a rally today, Sen. McCain again asserted that Sen. Obama has requested nearly a billion in earmarks. In fact, the Illinois senator requested $311 million last year, according to the Associated Press, and none this year. In comparison, Gov. Palin has requested $750 million in her two years as governor -- which the AP says is the largest per-capita request in the nation.

Not sure how much clearer it can get. The ad is BS and you know it.

 

[tocco05]

OK one more time:

From the WSJ (hardly a bastion of "liberal media"):

Not sure how much clearer it can get. The ad is BS and you know it.

Senator Barack Obama on Thursday released a list of $740 million in earmarked spending requests that he had made over the last three years, and his campaign challenged Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to do the same.
The list included $1 million for a hospital where Mr. Obama’s wife works, money for several projects linked to campaign donors and support for more than 200 towns, civic institutions and universities in Illinois.
But as the Senate debated a bill to restrict the controversial method of paying for home-state projects — a measure defeated Thursday evening — Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign also said that only about $220 million worth of his requests had been approved by Congress. And among those that had been killed were his request in 2006 for $1 million for an expansion of the University of Chicago Medical Center, where Mr. Obama’s wife, Michelle, is a vice president.
Mr. Obama’s aides and officials at the hospital said Mr. Obama’s wife had had nothing to do with the request. Campaign officials said he had voluntarily released the list of his earmark requests to underscore his promise to bring greater openness and transparency to government, an issue on which he has tried to put Mrs. Clinton on the defensive.
The release comes as both Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, his rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, have joined the presumptive Republican nominee, Senator John McCain of Arizona, in supporting a proposal to ban spending earmarked for home-state projects for one year.
So far, Mrs. Clinton, a senator from New York, has resisted Mr. Obama’s call to release her earmark requests, and the skirmishing over the issue set off more tension between the campaigns.
“Bringing real change requires changing the way we do business in Washington,” said Robert Gibbs, Mr. Obama’s communications director. “If Senator Clinton will not agree to join Senator Obama in releasing her earmark requests, voters should ask why she doesn’t believe they have the right to know how she wants to spend their tax dollars.”
Philippe Reines, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, countered in a statement that she had supported a one-year moratorium on earmarks to “give the Congress time to take a hard look at this process and work on improving its transparency and accountability.”
He did not address whether she would release a list of her requests. But Mr. Reines said she was “proud of the investments in New York that she has secured,” and that she would limit her earmark requests this year “to the most critical needs for New York and America,” like providing health care for people suffering from the effects of Sept. 11 and bolstering domestic security.
Mr. Obama had previously released the requests for earmarks that he made last year. And Thursday’s statement disclosed details of his requests from 2005 and 2006 for the kinds of home-state projects that critics often describe as pork-barrel politics.
Many senators have been reluctant to release such lists out of fear that they would open them to questions about ties to political donors or controversy back home about which organizations they had favored. As a result, it also is hard to judge how often they succeed in pushing the requests.
Based on the release by his campaign, Mr. Obama was able to obtain only about $3 out of every $10 he requested.
The winning requests included more than $10 million for a military arsenal in Rock Island, Ill., to several million dollars for research on soybean disease and livestock genes at the University of Illinois and $100,000 for after-school clubs and sports programs at the Chicago Jesuit Academy.
The request for $1 million for the University of Chicago Medical Center was to help pay for construction of a pavilion that could increase its capacity for treating patients by one-third.
Kelly M. Sullivan, the medical center’s vice president for communications and marketing, noted that Mr. Obama had also requested money for a number of other hospitals in Illinois, and she said any lobbying for the money had been handled by the hospital’s government-affairs officials.
“I can tell you with 100 percent certainty that Michelle Obama was not part of our lobbying over the request, not in any way,” Ms. Sullivan said. She said the hospital’s lobbyists often seek help on their own from both of the state’s senators.
In other cases, Mr. Obama’s requests benefited political supporters.
His campaign’s list said the senator had secured $1.3 million of an $8 million request in 2006 for a high-explosive technology program for the Army’s Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The list said the program was overseen by General Dynamics.
One of Mr. Obama’s top supporters, James S. Crown, serves on the board of General Dynamics, a military contractor. Mr. Crown is a member of Mr. Obama’s national finance committee.
Mr. Obama also secured $750,000 of a $3 million request for renovation of a space center named for Mr. Crown’s grandfather, Henry Crown, at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago.
In addition to the University of Illinois, Mr. Obama secured several million dollars for a project at Chicago State University. Emil Jones Jr., the president of the Illinois State Senate and an early and powerful political benefactor of Mr. Obama’s, has been a dogged champion of Chicago State, and one of Senator Obama’s closest friends. A Chicago businessman, James Reynolds, sits on its board.
But Bill Burton, a spokesman for Mr. Obama, said these requests had all been considered worthwhile by the senator’s staff, and that Mr. Obama never discussed any of them with Mr. Crown, Mr. Jones or Mr. Reynolds.
And even though earmarks have been a tried-and-true way for politicians to win allies, it did not work that way for Senator Obama in at least one case.
In 2006, Mr. Obama sought, but did not secure, $900,000 for a “Go Girl Go” sports initiative aimed at discouraging socially risky behavior in teenage girls by encouraging them to pursue physical activities. The group was founded by the former tennis star Billie Jean King. But Ms. King has endorsed Mrs. Clinton for president.

 

[jeckll]

If you don't have a response, change the topic and post a long article no one will read!
Make sure you don't include and refutation of a position!
Make sure you don't included any commentary of your own!
Same old tactics...

 

[kingbill]

They are both lying...or at least letting their PR people put the best positive spin on what they do...

 

[RobFunk]

If you don't have a response, change the topic and post a long article no one will read!
Make sure you don't include and refutation of a position!
Make sure you don't included any commentary of your own!
Same old tactics...

hahahaha. Yup.