[iomatic]

Lots more spin from the Right this time.

http://www.factcheck.org/

GOP Convention Spin, Part II
September 4, 2008
Palin trips up on her facts, and Giuliani and Huckabee have their own stumbles on Night 3 of the Republican confab.

Maverick Misleads
September 4, 2008
A McCain ad comparing Palin to Obama isn't all above board.

GOP Convention Spin
September 3, 2008
Lieberman and Thompson make misleading claims about Obama on Day Two of the party in St. Paul.

Hit the Brakes
September 3, 2008
An Obama ad running in Michigan claims McCain didn't support loan guarantees for the auto industry. In fact, he does support them.

A New Stitch in a Bad Pattern
September 2, 2008
A McCain ad wrongly claims Obama plans "painful tax increases" for working families. And who's talking about deficits?

FactChecking Obama
August 29, 2008
He stuck to the facts, except when he stretched them.

Context Included: Obama on Iran
August 27, 2008
McCain ad cherry-picks Obama remarks on Iran, twisting his meaning.

Obama and 'Infanticide'
August 25, 2008
The facts about Obama's votes against 'Born Alive' bills in Illinois.

Rezko Reality
August 22, 2008
McCain misfires as he attacks Obama's home purchase.

Reed Reality
August 22, 2008
Key facts are missing in an Obama ad linking McCain to Ralph Reed.

Born in the U.S.A.
August 21, 2008
The truth about Obama's birth certificate.

Distorting McCain's Remarks
August 19, 2008
An Obama ad uses dated and out of context quotes to portray McCain as clueless on the economy.

[dcmacdaddy]

Hmmm, who's doing the spinning now? You listed the items on that page that show where McCain was un-truthful in the claims he made about Obama without also listing the items that show where Obama was un-truthful in the claims he made about McCain.

You lose!


The beauty of the fact check site is they try as much as possible to be objective and simply point out differences or discrepancies where they arise. Going to them to find statements about the candidate you support is no good as they are likely to have just as many statements made by the candidate you oppose.

[stupendousman]

Explain to me again how it is that Obama was able to afford that piece of property...he couldn't afford before Rezko bought it?

Is it the norm for illegal influence peddlers to take money out of their own pockets to gift a politician with something he otherwise couldn't afford, and it not be seen as a severe ethical lapse?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Hmmm, who's doing the spinning now? You listed the items on that page that show where McCain was un-truthful in the claims he made about Obama without also listing the items that show where Obama was un-truthful in the claims he made about McCain.

Did you try reading the list before posting a response?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Is it the norm for illegal influence peddlers to take money out of their own pockets to gift a politician with something he otherwise couldn't afford, and it not be seen as a severe ethical lapse?

It's called Lobbying. All sides do it.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Hmmm, who's doing the spinning now? You listed the items on that page that show where McCain was un-truthful in the claims he made about Obama without also listing the items that show where Obama was un-truthful in the claims he made about McCain.

You lose!

Heh. Classic.

Distorting McCain's Remarks
August 19, 2008
An Obama ad uses dated and out of context quotes to portray McCain as clueless on the economy.

Etc.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Did you try reading the list before posting a response?

You're right. I didn't read the whole list. I only read the comment line and the first 4 or 5 entries in the list and assumed the OP was saying the site was pro-McCain. I was wrong in my response to iomatic.


Sorry, iomatic. I shouldn't have been so critical of your post.

[iomatic]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

You're right. I didn't read the whole list. I only read the comment line and the first 4 or 5 entries in the list and assumed the OP was saying the site was pro-McCain. I was wrong in my response to iomatic.


Sorry, iomatic. I shouldn't have been so critical of your post.

Thanks for reading. It was just a snapshot of today's list, but it's hardly conclulsive.

[Shaddim]

So, they're all lying and slinging sh*t like chimps at the zoo. Sounds like an election year to me.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

So, they're all lying and slinging sh*t like chimps at the zoo. Sounds like an election year to me.

See, that's why I stand on the side. Doesn't smell so much.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

See, that's why I stand on the side. Doesn't smell so much.

Makes you wish you just take a ship out into the black and sail around, slipping the grip of authority and going your own way long as you can...eh?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Makes you wish you just take a ship out into the black and sail around, slipping the grip of authority and going your own way long as you can...eh?

No place I could be since I found serenity.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

No place I could be since I found serenity.

Brother, I can't wait for the Blu-Ray.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Brother, I can't wait for the Blu-Ray.

I'm excited about the prospects of an HD Firefly & Serenity, but not on Blu-Ray. Too expensive.

[Eug]

I already have Serenity on HD DVD. I think I paid $12.99 for it.

Serenity Now!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

It's called Lobbying. All sides do it.

Yes, all sides engage in corruption, I don't deny that. Some though have to pay for it by going to jail. Others who know the right folks get the Democratic nomination for President.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Yes, all sides engage in corruption, I don't deny that. Some though have to pay for it by going to jail. Others who know the right folks get the Democratic nomination for President.

While you're certainly right that we should not countenance corruption, this claim against Obama doesn't seem to have merit.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

While you're certainly right that we should not countenance corruption, this claim against Obama doesn't seem to have merit.

Then surely you can answer my question:

Explain to me again how it is that Obama was able to afford that piece of property...he couldn't afford before Rezko bought it?

Is it the norm for illegal influence peddlers to take money out of their own pockets to gift a politician with something he otherwise couldn't afford, and it not be seen as a severe ethical lapse?

[iomatic]

^oh ffs. clear the trooper-gate, expound on how the relevance of Palin's daughter's hypocrisy weighs naught, detail the factual claims in her speeches, provide us the play-by-play of experienced accomplishments in government that favor your suggested VP, and we won't vote for Obama.

Do that clearly, and you have my vote.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by iomatic 

^oh ffs. clear the trooper-gate, expound on how the relevance of Palin's daughter's hypocrisy weighs naught, detail the factual claims in her speeches, provide us the play-by-play of experienced accomplishments in government that favor your suggested VP, and we won't vote for Obama.

Do that clearly, and you have my vote.

Huh? The above does not compute. How was Palin's daughter hypocritical? Then, how would one measure it to weigh it naught? Obama asking you to lay off her personal life not enough? With all due respect, the above looks like an in-cohesive, sloppily compiled collage of talking points and bumper-stickers.

"Clear the trooper gate". Is this a reference to the investigation of Spitzer? Polls showed that the majority of New Yorkers wanted Governor Spitzer to testify under oath and tell what he knew about the scandal. If not Spitzer himself, who would be bent on clearing him and how is that relevant? Unless you're talking about the investigation of Palin. If we're going with "guilty 'til proven innocent", Biden's brother and son are in heap-big trouble.

Palin's accomplishments have been given in great detail. The problem is they measure up to Obama's a little too tightly for the comfort of many here. They've also involved challenging Obama's credentials and past. What happens is; "we could go tit for tat all day" and "I'm not interested in these details" and "I don't have time to address the litany of issues you've listed here" etc...

By proving why the bottom of the Republican ticket is qualified for Vice Presidency, you'll relinquish your vote for the top of the Democratic ticket for President? Interesting.

[iomatic]

All I have from you are sweeping statements.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by iomatic 

All I have from you are sweeping statements.

You get out what you put in.