alexey Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 Obama's Administration will be much better for this country than McCain's Administration. Does it really matter if they have to stretch the truth here and there? Even if they do it from time to time, they are doing it to get elected and make this country better. They are putting country first in doing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 You are obviously being dishonest and twisting the facts. Or did you not read this part of the article:"McCain doesn't propose that the elderly divert their Social Security money into the stock market. He's said that he wants to allow younger workers - not current retirees or those close to it - to divert some of their Social Security taxes into privately managed accounts that could include stocks." What's the matter? Not so happy about these tactics when it's not your guy using them huh? I say Obama should follow McCain's lead and repeat the same thing over and over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 I see that not only is Obama full of deception, but so are his supporters. You are pedantically quibbling with minutia, and ignoring the broader truth... You want to focus on the specifics... Elderly people in 2008 would not have had their benifits cut in 2008 by Bush's privitization plan... While ignoreing the greater reality that Bush's privitization plan if put into effect would have advanced the total failure of the system by years maybe decades. If congress doesn't act this week on a bail out plan, the folks who would have/ could have had private accounts would be whipped out. Even now I know several elderly who have lost a lot of their savings because of the Fannie, Freddie, Lehmans, and AIG.. But you are technically miopically, pedantically accurate in your critisms of the add. Like that's going to do you any good. Bush and McCain barn stormed teh country in favor of that privatization plan. Bush McCain have hand and hand proposed deregulation. McCain isn't fooling anybody by claiming he's actually a regulatory guy today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrumanB Posted September 23, 2008 Author Share Posted September 23, 2008 What's the matter? Not so happy about these tactics when it's not your guy using them huh? I say Obama should follow McCain's lead and repeat the same thing over and over again. McCain doesn't prey on the elderly. It's pathetic what Obama and his supporters are stooping to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 You are obviously being dishonest and twisting the facts. Or did you not read this part of the article: "McCain doesn't propose that the elderly divert their Social Security money into the stock market. He's said that he wants to allow younger workers - not current retirees or those close to it - to divert some of their Social Security taxes into privately managed accounts that could include stocks." Younger workers will be elderly too in a few years... Your premise that the plan to privatize social security wasn't actually a plan to put money into self directed accounts in the stock market is what is misleading and wrong. Maybe McCain could replay a few of those speeche where he claimed the return in the stock market would make benifits much greater... That would be an effective add too, for OBAMA.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 McCain doesn't prey on the elderly. It's pathetic what Obama and his supporters are stooping to. That's because he IS the elderly! *rimshot* So what you're saying is that it's OK for candidates to lie as long as they don't lie to the elderly? Oh please, if candidates on both sides of the aisle haven't been doing that forever why then is Social Security known as the 3rd rail of politics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 It's a bit of a stretch. We are well into the silly season, and hyperbole has become the norm. It's not exactly the horrible lie that Truman wants it to be, nor does it compare to the whoppers that McCain has been throwing around. Ah well. Democrats can post their own stories and people can compare them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 As an aside- is anyone else having trouble scrolling past PleaseBlitz's signature? Everytime that sig pops up on my screen, my computer does a 15 seconds hiccup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 As an aside- is anyone else having trouble scrolling past PleaseBlitz's signature?Everytime that sig pops up on my screen, my computer does a 15 seconds hiccup. Sorry, my photobucket account is 'over the limit' whatever the **** that means. (It means they want money for a free service, im pretty sure. I'll get rid of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrumanB Posted September 23, 2008 Author Share Posted September 23, 2008 It's not exactly the horrible lie that Truman wants it to be, nor does it compare to the whoppers that McCain has been throwing around. Ah well. Democrats can post their own stories and people can compare them. It's interesting that you use the term "whoppers" since that is precisely the terminology that Factcheck.org uses to describe Obama's lies about McCain's social security plan: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_social_security_whopper.html Obama's Social Security Whopper September 20, 2008 Updated: September 22, 2008 He tells Social Security recipients their money would now be in the stock market under McCain's plan. False. Summary In Daytona Beach, Obama said that "if my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would've had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week." He referred to "elderly women" at risk of poverty, and said families would be scrambling to support "grandmothers and grandfathers." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 Sorry, my photobucket account is 'over the limit' whatever the **** that means. (It means they want money for a free service, im pretty sure.I'll get rid of it. Thank you very much! I appreciate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 It's interesting that you use the term "whoppers" since that is precisely the terminology that Factcheck.org uses to describe Obama's lies about McCain's social security plan:http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_social_security_whopper.html Have you checked factcheck against any of McCain's ads or speeches, by any chance? There's an awful lot of whoppers out there, and they are running about 80-20 McCain over Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 Obama IS incorrect that benefits would be cut in half - that is false, and it really does him little good to make these statements, except to mislead the audience. That being stated, I think part of the issue surrounds the word "privatization," and that McCain has not been clear in his stance on such a plan. McCain has said: "I'm not for quote privatizing Social Security, I never have been, I never will be." But then, he says: "Without privatization, I don’t see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits.” And... “As part of Social Security reform, I believe that private savings accounts are a part of it — along the lines that President Bush proposed.” And again... "There may be a role for private investment accounts for younger workers as long as they are not a substitute for insuring the solvency of the system and does not affect the system," McCain said." So which is it? Creating private "savings" and "investments accounts" has generally been accepted as part of the transition to a privatization system. Furthermore, McCain has supported the Bush plan (even though he now denies it) and his "initial" phase is very similar to the Bush plan, too. But he's is saying that he doesn't support privatization - how is that consistent or truthful? (BTW, my objective isn't to declare if privatization is a good or bad idea.) As a note, typically, such accounts are usually voluntary and not mandatory. McCain wants to assure conservatives that he supports privatization, while assuring those who do not support it, which is the majority of Americans, that he doesn't. He wants to play it both ways, because it is a somewhat shaky issue for either candidate. It's obvious that BOTH CANDIDATES have not been truthful in this matter. McCain, as demonstrated earlier in this post, has not been truthful, and with this speech, Obama has not been truthful as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrumanB Posted September 23, 2008 Author Share Posted September 23, 2008 Have you checked factcheck against any of McCain's ads or speeches, by any chance? There's an awful lot of whoppers out there, and they are running about 80-20 McCain over Obama. Way to change the subject, instead of addressing my post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 It's interesting that you use the term "whoppers" since that is precisely the terminology that Factcheck.org uses to describe Obama's lies about McCain's social security plan:http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_social_security_whopper.html Obama using the term "elderly" is a little fast and loose, but in just a few short years, the audience he was addressing would have included some "elderly" affected by the McCain plan, if it would use the same 1950 cut-off age as the Bush plan. It could be considered a scare tactic...NOW - in five or ten years? No. A whopper? Well, as much as McCain's own misstatements on his own Social Security positions could be considered a whopper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 Way to change the subject, instead of addressing my post. I did address your post. I said it was "a stretch" but not a complete utter lie. Do you even read other people's responses, or do you just lace on your Conservative Crusader armor and lash out in every direction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrumanB Posted September 23, 2008 Author Share Posted September 23, 2008 I did address your post. I said it was "a stretch" but not a complete utter lie. No, you did not respond to my last post where I pointed out that your characterization of it as a "stretch" was described as a "whopper" by Factcheck.org. Your response was "the other guy does it more". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 No, you did not respond to my last post where I pointed out that your characterization of it as a "stretch" was described as a "whopper" by Factcheck.org. Your response was "the other guy does it more". How dare he introduce information into this discussion... How dare he attempt to shed light on the campagne. How dare he not contritely agree with you and change his candidate. You do know Truman was a liberal life long democrate, and would be voting for Obama in this campagne over McCain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrumanB Posted September 23, 2008 Author Share Posted September 23, 2008 You do know Truman was a liberal life long democrate, and would be voting for Obama in this campagne over McCain. And that is relevant how? My ES name isn't after Harry Truman. By the way, it's spelled "campaign". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 Actually, I've heard that they are going to offer an alternate spelling. After this election year, it can officially be spelled campaign or cam-pain or even Camp Pain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrumanB Posted September 23, 2008 Author Share Posted September 23, 2008 Actually, I've heard that they are going to offer an alternate spelling. After this election year, it can officially be spelled campaign or cam-pain or even Camp Pain I actually prefer cam-Palin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 That's actually pretty good, Truman lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 And that is relevant how? My ES name isn't after Harry Truman. Well break it down for us... It's relevant because somewhere along the line, your people thought an awful lot about a liberal democrat named Harry Truman. Even if you are named after a guy who was named after Harry.... I say that just to broach the subject that all Democrats aren't bad. All Liberals aren't bad. Four of our five greatest presidents off all time across both parties considerd themselves liberals.. None of our Five Greatest called themselves conservative. Five greatest presidents.. Chronologically Washington (f) Jefferson (d) Lincoln ® Teddy ® FDR.. (d) Truman(d) and Reagan® go down as great presidents, but not among our greatest. Reagain goes down as a great president, our greatest conservative president... The only conservatives to be catagorized in one of the top catagories. That was my point... Don't dismiss Obama because you think all liberals / Democrates have horns growing out of their heads. That's a load of crap you are being sold on. Think of what you hate most about liberals, then take a long honest look at what we've just lived through for the last 8 years; then tell me why you don't think we need a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrumanB Posted September 23, 2008 Author Share Posted September 23, 2008 It's relevant because somewhere along the line, your people thought an awful lot about a liberal democrat named Harry Truman. Even if you are named after a guy who was named after Harry.... Who is "your people"? And, I am not "named after a guy who was named after Harry". I am named after a fictional movie character, Truman Burbank. I say that just to broach the subject that all Democrats aren't bad. All Liberals aren't bad. Four of our five greatest presidents off all time across both parties considerd themselves liberals.. None of our Five Greatest called themselves conservative.Five greatest presidents.. Chronologically Washington (f) Jefferson (d) Lincoln ® Teddy ® FDR.. (d) Truman(d) and Reagan® go down as great presidents, but not among our greatest. Reagain goes down as a great president, our greatest conservative president... The only conservatives to be catagorized in one of the top catagories. That was my point... Don't dismiss Obama because you think all liberals / Democrates have horns growing out of their heads. That's a load of crap you are being sold on. Think of what you hate most about liberals, then take a long honest look at what we've just lived through for the last 8 years; then tell me why you don't think we need a change. I'm not sure why you have gone down this road. What does Obama remotely have to do with any of those presidents you listed. It's certainly not from any political philosophies they share. FDR would have to be the closest because of the big federal government programs, but I don't believe even he envisioned what the federal government has grown into today. Obama is a left wing liberal with strong socialist ideas. I don't think we've had a president (or even presidential candidate except for maybe McGovern) that was as liberal as he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted September 23, 2008 Share Posted September 23, 2008 Sorry, my photobucket account is 'over the limit' whatever the **** that means. (It means they want money for a free service, im pretty sure.I'll get rid of it. You might want to give fileden.com a try. :2cents: OK, back to your regularly scheduled mudslinging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.