For weeks, she's been peddling the same completely debunked lies about Senator Obama's "associations" with people and organizations that actually have much stronger ties to Senator McCain, her running mate.
I thought it was the height of embarrasment. It was like listening to Don Rumsfeld swear that there were weapons of mass destruction, to the point where he even told reporters "If it weren't classified, I could put my finger on the map for you." (Hey, Rummy; maybe you should have put your finger on the map of the people looking for those weapons of mass destruction. We've controlled Iraq for what - five years? - and somehow they've never turned up.)
Rummy was caught lying, and so has Palin. The pathetic thing is, that even with the lies revealed, she keeps repeating them over and over, as if repitition will make them suddenly be true. Alas, the WMD didn't spring into being for Rummy, Cheney, et. al, and the only thing to materialize for the McCain campaign is the fact that McCain gave money to Ayres and Khalid, and spoke on behalf of ACORN.
But now Palin has a novel defense: by repeatedly exposing her lies, she claims that the media is violating her freedom of speech.
Here's what she said in an interview on WMAL:
First, if you make claims about the opposition, you have to have the facts in place to back them up. When someone comes up with facts that contradict you, and report them, that's called responsible journalism. Sarah Palin has been lying. The media - and anyone willing to do a very small amount of research - discovered that she's either greatly exagerrated or outright lied about Obama's association, and utterly ignored the much strong connections her running mate actually has with ACORN, William Ayers, and Al Khayid.
Second, the First Amendment is designed specifically to protect the PRESS from THE GOVERNMENT. It is actually impossible for "the media" to violate Palin's 'Free Speech Rights" merely by excersing their own.
For the record, here is the First Amendment in its entirety, as it appears in a document that Palin has apparently never bothered to read:
And Sarah? While you have the right to say anything you like, you do not have the right to not be contradicted. In fact, the right of the media to expose you as a rotten liar is the express purpose of the First Amendment.
I submit that telling lies about your opponent's associations is in fact "negative campaigning." And I also submit that having those lies exposed is not a violation of the liar's rights, but a responsible exercising of their rights by the media.
I thought it was the height of embarrasment. It was like listening to Don Rumsfeld swear that there were weapons of mass destruction, to the point where he even told reporters "If it weren't classified, I could put my finger on the map for you." (Hey, Rummy; maybe you should have put your finger on the map of the people looking for those weapons of mass destruction. We've controlled Iraq for what - five years? - and somehow they've never turned up.)
Rummy was caught lying, and so has Palin. The pathetic thing is, that even with the lies revealed, she keeps repeating them over and over, as if repitition will make them suddenly be true. Alas, the WMD didn't spring into being for Rummy, Cheney, et. al, and the only thing to materialize for the McCain campaign is the fact that McCain gave money to Ayres and Khalid, and spoke on behalf of ACORN.
But now Palin has a novel defense: by repeatedly exposing her lies, she claims that the media is violating her freedom of speech.
Here's what she said in an interview on WMAL:
"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations, then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."It's appalling to think that Sarah Palin actually thinks that we're stupid enough to swallow this whopper. It's actually TWO LIES in one.
First, if you make claims about the opposition, you have to have the facts in place to back them up. When someone comes up with facts that contradict you, and report them, that's called responsible journalism. Sarah Palin has been lying. The media - and anyone willing to do a very small amount of research - discovered that she's either greatly exagerrated or outright lied about Obama's association, and utterly ignored the much strong connections her running mate actually has with ACORN, William Ayers, and Al Khayid.
Second, the First Amendment is designed specifically to protect the PRESS from THE GOVERNMENT. It is actually impossible for "the media" to violate Palin's 'Free Speech Rights" merely by excersing their own.
For the record, here is the First Amendment in its entirety, as it appears in a document that Palin has apparently never bothered to read:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
And Sarah? While you have the right to say anything you like, you do not have the right to not be contradicted. In fact, the right of the media to expose you as a rotten liar is the express purpose of the First Amendment.
I submit that telling lies about your opponent's associations is in fact "negative campaigning." And I also submit that having those lies exposed is not a violation of the liar's rights, but a responsible exercising of their rights by the media.
If Senator Obama wins this election, the following is what it has taken to get a very questionable, extremely inexperienced, very junior first time Senator past the mark:
ReplyDelete1. Senator Obama’s campaign is outspending Senator McCain’s campaign 4 to 1 or more in some locations. This is due to Senator Obama backing out of an agreement he made with Senator McCain.
2. Senator Obama’s campaign has opened up about 700 offices nation-wide versus less than 100 than Senator McCain’s campaign has opened up.
3. The mainstream media has been completely biased against Senator McCain.
4. Biased organizations, such as ACORN, have received contributions from Senator Obama, have been openly supporting Senator Obama, and are under investigation for committing voter registration fraud in multiple states favoring Senator Obama.
5 An enormous number of biased celebrities have been supporting Senator Obama and speaking out against Senator McCain.
6. Even though Congress is very unpopular, both sides are controlled by the democrats and have been making biased statements against Senator McCain.
7. Senator McCain is disadvantaged because of the unpopularity of the incumbent President.
8. All four of the debate moderators lean to the left and were not 100% fair.
Even with all of the biased and unfair things mentioned above that are running against Senator McCain, Senator Obama only has a narrow lead. Should he not be way out in front? I have heard people state that on the news from both campaigns. That should tell you something. Also, Senator Obama pulled a cheap shot on Senator McCain and the American public in regards to campaign financing. Both campaigns agreed to use public financing during the presidential campaign. At the last moment, Senator Obama backed out of his agreement and took private financing, giving Senator Obama a significant advantage over Senator McCain in financing his campaign. In addition, Senator Obama is not being totally open as to where all his contributions are coming from. But even though Senator Obama took a sucker punch and tricked Senator McCain and all Americans by backing out of his agreement, Senator McCain is keeping with his word and using public financing. This is severely disadvantaging Senator McCain’s campaign financing by putting much lower caps on the amount of money he will have available. This is the reason Senator Obama can outspend Senator McCain 4 to 1. This also shows that Senator Obama does not keep his campaign promises, just like his past campaign promises.
Just imagine what it will be like when you have both the House of Representatives and the Senate controlled by the democrats, and Senator Obama in the Whitehouse signing everything that comes across his desk from them. In other words, the person writing the check will also be the one cashing it. There will be no “checks and balances”, especially if the democrats pick up a few more seats in the Senate and it becomes filibuster-proof, which means they will have a monopoly. Again, there will be no checks and balances. We will have higher taxes, more government, and fewer rights. They have already promised all of those things. You will have a government that will tax the people that are creating the jobs so they can “spread the wealth around”. Who do you think creates the jobs in this country? Have you ever seen a business owned by a poor person? Are they the ones starting small businesses and creating jobs? Obviously not! So we have established the fact that the people that own the small businesses and create the jobs are NOT the poor. So lets talk about what is going to happen when they start taxing the people that do own the small businesses that create the jobs.
So what do you think will happen when they start taxing the small business owners? First, jobs will be lost. They will not be able to afford to keep the same amount of people they have now – they will have to let people go. In addition, they will not be able to expand their businesses and hire more people. The second thing that will happen is that prices will go up. Do you think businesses will not raise the cost of their products and services to offset the extra taxes they have to pay? This should be obvious. The prices will go up on everything and will affect everybody – to include the middle class and the poor. When you go to the grocery store, the food prices will be higher. When you go buy a car, the prices will be higher. When you go to the department store the prices are going to be higher. Put yourself in the shoes of a business owner; if your expenses go up, would you not raise the price of your products to pay for them? Of course you would! And taxes are an expense.
Now lets talk about presidential qualifications. When a federal employee or a member of the military has a need to have access to classified materials, they would need to get a security clearance. A security clearance attempts to certify that an individual is of high moral character and does not pose a security risk. If a federal employee or a member of the military admits to using a dangerous drug, such as cocaine, they will not be eligible for a security clearance. In addition, an admitted cocaine user would not be able to get in the military and if he or she is a federal employee, he or she would be moved to a position of lesser responsibility and not have access to classified materials. Senator Obama has admitted to using cocaine in his book that he wrote. As a candidate for president, should he not be held up to the same standards of a federal employee or a member of our military? As President, he is going to be exposed to an enormous amount of classified materials, have his finger on the nuke button, and be the commander in chief of the strongest military in the world. Would you not want someone in that position that can qualify for a security clearance?
Another point I would like to make is in regards to Senator Obama’s experience, which is a drop in the bucket compared to Senator McCain’s. With the world and the economy in such a delicate position, I cannot imagine why anyone would not want the most experienced person in the Whitehouse. Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and even Senator Obama’s running mate, Senator Joe Biden, have made statements to the fact that Senator Obama is not experienced enough to be President and that the presidency is not the type of job for on-the-job training. They also said that Senator McCain brings a lifetime of experience to the table. Senator Obama’s running mate, Senator Biden, even said he would even be honored to run “with” his friend John McCain. These individuals are now claiming that they said that during the primaries when they were running against Senator Obama. Does that mean they were lying then, or now? Senator Obama claimed that he had more diverse foreign policy experience because he lived overseas as a kid. Living overseas does not give you foreign policy experience, unless you are an Ambassador, which he was not. If it did, then Senator John McCain would again best Senator Obama’s record since he has lived overseas being a member of the military.
What issue or issues are you going to base your voting decision on? Will it be the economy? National defense? Education? There are so many out there. Because of the current economic situation, a large number of you are going to base your decision on who is best for the economy. I would hope that I have answered this question for you earlier on in this article. Such as pointing out which candidate has promised to raise taxes and spend more reducing jobs and raising the cost to live. But just in case I have not, I have a couple additional items for you to think about. If you look at all of the campaign promises on Senator Obama’s web site, you will see hundreds of them. How is he going to pay for them? I think I answered that already. But, if you add of the costs of all of them, mathematically it is going to cost us a lot more than he will be able to raise in taxes. So many of these are going to be just like so many of his previous campaign promises – they won’t get done. Maybe the economy is not the best issue to use in making a decision for president. What about national defense? In my opinion, if you don’t have a secure nation, the rest of the issues are moot. With Russia and China outspending us two fold to build up their military; with Iran and North Korea toying around with nukes and making threats; with Russia making friends and conducting military exercises not too far from our back door in Venezuela; with Russia helping Iran build nuclear processing material plants; and with the terrorist threat growing in Pakistan (a nuclear country), Afghanistan, Africa, and several other countries throughout the world, I want the most experienced and tested person in that office. Not some junior Senator that has absolutely no experience in national security. The economy is important, but national defense is a must. Remember, if our country is not secure, then the economy means nothing, our freedom is in jeopardy, and our lives as we know them today could easily be drastically changed in a moments notice. Just ask the citizens of the country of Georgia. One last point: Have you see who is openly supporting Senator Obama in the news? Iran and the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah have made public statements that they would prefer Sen. Obama to win. Go figure.
So after reading this, where do you stand? The differences in these two candidates are very apparent. On one hand, you have an individual with many years of applicable “real world” experience, has been a public servant and leader for about 50 years, has a proven record to reduce taxes and government spending, and is dedicated to growing the US economy and jobs. On the other hand, you have an individual with very little experience, questionable associations, has a proven record to increase taxes, government spending, and earmarks, and has promised to increase taxes and government spending. As I said at the beginning of this article, I cannot imagine why anyone in their right mind, after doing a real comparison of the two candidates, would vote for Senator Obama. I admit, he presents himself well and has a good appearance, as long as he has a teleprompter to read from. So the bottom line is what do you want in the next president, appearance or substance?
Now for those of you who blame President Bush for everything, consider this: George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.
A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high.
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon.
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
4) The DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 +
5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations overseas, and living large!
But American's wanted 'CHANGE'!
So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes--we got 'CHANGE' all right.
In the PAST YEAR:
1) Consumer confidence has plummeted.
2) Gasoline went over $4 a gallon and was climbing, until the stock market crashed.
3) Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a 10% increase).
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS and prices still dropping.
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
6) As I write, THE DOW is probing another low~~ $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!
YES, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE...AND WE SURE GOT IT! ...
REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF THESE ISSUES, ONLY CONGRESS.
AND WHAT HAS CONGRESS DONE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
NOW THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT CLAIMS HE IS GOING TO REALLY GIVE US CHANGE ALONG WITH A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS!!!!
JUST HOW MUCH MORE 'CHANGE' DO YOU THINK YOU CAN STAND?
Geeez, Glen, why don't you post on your own blog? But I'll play.
ReplyDeleteSenator Obama’s campaign is outspending Senator McCain’s campaign 4 to 1 or more in some locations. This is due to Senator Obama backing out of an agreement he made with Senator McCain.
Sorry, Glenn, but this is a lie. I exposed it earlier this week. Obama agreed to discuss the matter, but never flat-out said he would use public financing.
Senator Obama’s campaign has opened up about 700 offices nation-wide versus less than 100 than Senator McCain’s campaign has opened up.
So Obama's more accessible. Not a bad thing, Glen.
Biased organizations, such as ACORN, have received contributions from Senator Obama
Glen, if you're going to lie, you'll have to better than ACORN. Obama has never given ANY money to ACORN, a group that John McCain has supported for years. I wrote about that a couple of years ago.
An enormous number of biased celebrities have been supporting Senator Obama and speaking out against Senator McCain.
It's a free country, Glen. If you haven't noticed I am also speaking out against John McCain, so that's a really bizarre argument to put up. Speaking out against politicians is a cornerstone of being an American. If you find that offensive, you must not really like being an American very much.
Even though Congress is very unpopular, both sides are controlled by the democrats and have been making biased statements against Senator McCain.
Glen, this statement doesn't even make sense: statements don't have bias, and you seem to be saying "both sides" are speaking "against" McCain, which means you're saying REPUBLICANS are speaking against him, which actually undermines your own position.
Even with all of the biased and unfair things mentioned above that are running against Senator McCain, Senator Obama only has a narrow lead. Should he not be way out in front?
Of course he should, but then lying assholes like you muddy up the waters with all your false claims. And you keep repeating them over and over again.
Both campaigns agreed to use public financing during the presidential campaign.
Repeating a lie does not make it true. Obama agreed to talk about it, that's all. And McCain did use it, then violated the spending limit, and then tried to pull out of it.
Senator Obama a significant advantage over Senator McCain in financing his campaign.
As you have pointed out, Obama is barely ahead of McCain. McCain has years of national exposure, and Obama does not. Equal campaign funding would have left Obama at a severe disadvantage, which is why he was wise not to pursue it.
Senator McCain is keeping with his word and using public financing.
I get it, you've never read any of my other blogs. If you did, you'd know full well that McCain tried to withdraw from using public financing back in February. The ONLY reason he's still on the program is the fact that the FEC has to approve it, and they do not have enough board members to make a quorum.
McCain also VIOLATED that funding by spending too much, as I wrote just last week.
There will be no “checks and balances”, especially if the democrats pick up a few more seats in the Senate and it becomes filibuster-proof, which means they will have a monopoly. Again, there will be no checks and balances.
Well, that is simply a flat lie. You still have one man's views being balanced out by many men's views, which is all that was ever intended by the Constitution. And all of them were elected by the people of the United States of America.
What you're really saying is that you're afraid of democracy, and that's a sad thing, Glen.
Don't be afraid: in only two years, we can replace the entire House of Representatives and a third of the Senate.
We will have higher taxes, more government, and fewer rights.
We certainly got that with the Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II administrations. The Republicans have proven to ME that their claims of lower taxes and smaller government is nothing but lip-service.
In addition, an admitted cocaine user would not be able to get in the military and if he or she is a federal employee,
And yet George W. Bush served in the National Guard AND the Presidency. Oh, wait, he didn't ADMIT it, he just DID cocaine.
I guess you didn't notice that there's a time factor on that cocaine-use thing. G'wan, look it up. Federal forms don't ask if you've EVERY used drugs, they ask if you've used drugs in the last 7 years.
Now lets talk about presidential qualifications.
Well, we'll skip over the nonsense about top-secret clearances, since it's obvious you don't know anything about the subject.
I will point out that Obama has more experience than Abraham Lincoln did. You remember ol' Honest Abe, don't ya? Republican, lawyer from Illinois? Served one term as a Representative, and then lost a Senate race to Stephen Douglas?
The thing is, Glen, as much as I hate to say it, there's a good chance that neither candidate will live to finish their term in office: McCain is in very poor health, and there are radical racist groups who are likely to try to assassinate a black president.
Which means we really need to pay attention to the VP candidate. And let's face it, if Palin really had enough experience, no one would be using lame statements like "she can see Russia" and "Commander and Chief of the Alaskan National Guard."
What issue or issues are you going to base your voting decision on? Will it be the economy? National defense? Education?
All of these things, Glen. That's why I voted for Obama.
In the PAST YEAR:
1) Consumer confidence has plummeted.
2) Gasoline went over $4 a gallon and was climbing, until the stock market crashed.
3) Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a 10% increase).
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS and prices still dropping.
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
6) As I write, THE DOW is probing another low~~ $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!
Yes, this all happened under the administration of a Republican, George W. Bush. Thanks for reminding us about what 'great leaders' the Republicans are.
I believe America can't stand another Republican presidency; we are sullied by the poor leadership demonstrated time and again by the Republican Party over the last eight years.
BTW, Glen: this is the last time I will let a long comment stay up, unless references are supplied to back the positions. I am under no obligation to spread your propaganda for you: either pony up with facts, or I will delete future similar postings.
Just go ahead and delete it, Chris. This was copied and pasted. It's not censorship. It's deleting spam.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNah. I'm going to leave it up. Glen M and his GOP thugs might be afraid of dissent, but I'm not.
ReplyDeleteIt gave me a chance to deflate it.
But next time Glen posts, he'll have to do better than cutting and pasting someone else's fiction.
Yeah Glen, get your own blog.
ReplyDeleteI suppose your real reason for fear of checks & balances comes from the way Republicans ruined the country when they hd ALL the control. I'm a registered Independent & have voted for Republicans in my lifetime. I won't vote for ANY Republican again until they can prove themselves to be responsible to us, THE PEOPLE and NOT to their big business buddies who aren't really interested in the health & future of their companies but how musch they can make this year.
It's amazing Glen that you can still be so gulible after the last 8 years. It's because of people like you that the country is a big stinkin' mess!!!!