Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Can the Democrats tell the truth? (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=200738)

  • Mar 31, 2008, 12:36 PM
    speechlesstx
    Can the Democrats tell the truth?
    The Obama campaign is painting Clinton as a serial exaggerator after her Bosnian Sniper incident, helping bring peace to Northern Ireland, how she was instrumental in passing SCHIP and the Family and Medical Leave Act - while Obama is still trying to change the subject after his reversal on whether he knew about or heard any of his mentor's rants. Now the Washington Post reports Obama has exaggerated the Kennedys role in bringing his father to America.

    Quote:

    Addressing civil rights activists in Selma, Ala. a year ago, Sen. Barack Obama traced his "very existence" to the generosity of the Kennedy family, which he said paid for his Kenyan father to travel to America on a student scholarship and thus meet his Kansan mother.

    The Camelot connection has become part of the mythology surrounding Obama's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. After Caroline Kennedy endorsed his candidacy in January, Newsweek commentator Jonathan Alter reported that she had been struck by the extraordinary way in which "history replays itself" and by how "two generations of two families -- separated by distance, culture and wealth -- can intersect in strange and wonderful ways."

    It is a touching story -- but the key details are either untrue or grossly oversimplified.

    Contrary to Obama's claims in speeches in January at American University and in Selma last year, the Kennedy family did not provide the funding for a September 1959 airlift of 81 Kenyan students to the United States that included Obama's father. According to historical records and interviews with participants, the Kennedys were first approached for support for the program nearly a year later, in July 1960. The family responded with a $100,000 donation, most of which went to pay for a second airlift in September 1960.

    Obama spokesman Bill Burton acknowledged yesterday that the senator from Illinois had erred in crediting the Kennedy family with a role in his father's arrival in the United States. He said the Kennedy involvement in the Kenya student program apparently "started 48 years ago, not 49 years ago as Obama has mistakenly suggested in the past."
    Or in other words, "I owed my 'very existence' to the Kennedys before I didn't owe my 'very existence' to the Kennedys?

    Today, my paper printed an article about Obama's bowling adventure on Saturday (he reportedly scored a 37) "as part of his new emphasis on low-key, face-to-face campaigning," in which he was quoted as saying he wanted to "take time for the retail politics that I enjoy and think helps people know me better.. . We'll probably save the rallies toward the end of the campaign."

    Immediately below that article was one entitled "Obama's Penn State Rally Draws 20000."

    Well, Sunday is later than Saturday. Seriously folks... race, gender and party aside is this what you want in a president, someone who either can't tell the truth or can't distinguish fact from fantasy?
  • Mar 31, 2008, 12:45 PM
    ScottGem
    The better question is can ANY politician tell the truth! Frankly I don't think so. A politician tells you what he thinks you want to hear or what he thinks will get him votes.
  • Mar 31, 2008, 01:20 PM
    speechlesstx
    Agreed Scott, but believe it or not I do think there are politicians of integrity on both sides... not that any really come to mind at the moment :D

    Still, these two can't seem to get out of CYA mode lately and I don't see their opponent having to cover his tracks for making stuff up. True?
  • Mar 31, 2008, 01:31 PM
    George_1950
    Not in Hillary's case: I watched on C-Span her speech in Constitution Hall, March 26, 2008. According to her, the voters are stupid victims, unable to afford food, gas, medical care, etc. but she going to fix that by raising taxes. Uh huh. The politics of fear and envy, Democrat style. I'm not ashamed to say she is not patriotic because she is no patriot. We are serfs; she's a queen, according to Hillary.
  • Mar 31, 2008, 01:51 PM
    speechlesstx
    George, I question her experience, qualifications, judgment, character and her vision for this country - but I don't question her patriotism. Yet.
  • Mar 31, 2008, 02:35 PM
    speechlesstx
    Factcheck.org supports Hillary's claim on SCHIP (see ex, when the facts changed... ). I did not however come across any support on her claims to be named after Sir Edmund Hillary, her soccer fantasy or Chelsea's jog around the World Trade Center on 9/11.
  • Mar 31, 2008, 03:00 PM
    NeedKarma
    God these threads are getting tiresome.
  • Mar 31, 2008, 03:05 PM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma
    God these threads are getting tiresome.

    So are the liars running for office, NK. But, if they're too tiresome for you then don't bother. As an American looking ahead to the next American president after 8 years of hearing ad nauseum about "Bush's lies," I find it entirely relevant.
  • Mar 31, 2008, 03:20 PM
    BABRAM
    Steve-

    Huh? Are you alluding to the standards set by the Grand Old "Illusion" Party? The fact you excluded the Republicans suggests you've been hugging the Mad Dog before noon. Just a little reminder! Dubya ran one of the nastiest campaigns (2000 Rep primaries) against his then rival, "John McCain." Why do you think John McCain was so tentative to shake hands with the lying rattlesnake? Currently the cleaner campaigns are ran by Obama and McCain, at least thus far. It's obvious the facts mean very little to the Clinton's that have been doing anything and everything to gain control of the nomination.
  • Mar 31, 2008, 03:43 PM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    Obama has exaggerated the Kennedys role in bringing his father to America.
    He misspoke .

    For those who think he has shaken of the effect of the Rev Wright revelations they are wrong . This issue will resonate throughout the rest of the campaign. Obama's veneer has been pealed away. Just wait until reporters start digging into his past when he was a " community activist " .
  • Mar 31, 2008, 05:05 PM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by BABRAM
    Steve-

    Huh? Are you alluding to the standards set by the Grand Old "Illusion" Party? The fact you excluded the Republicans suggests you've been hugging the Mad Dog before noon. Just a little reminder! Dubya ran one of the nastiest campaigns (2000 Rep primaries) against his then rival, "John McCain." Why do you think John McCain was so tentative to shake hands with the lying rattlesnake?

    Um, no Bobby, I'm referring to the present campaign.

    Quote:

    Currently the cleaner campaigns are ran by Obama and McCain, at least thus far.
    Are you serious? Where is the sleaze factor from McCain? Have you read any of the DNC emails? Paid attention to the Democratic candidates?

    Quote:

    It's obvious the facts mean very little to the Clinton's that have been doing anything and everything to gain control of the nomination.
    True, and kind of discredits your previous remarks my friend. :)
  • Mar 31, 2008, 05:12 PM
    ordinaryguy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx
    is this what you want in a president, someone who either can't tell the truth or can't distinguish fact from fantasy?

    No, after eight years of it, I'm definitely ready for a change.
  • Mar 31, 2008, 05:43 PM
    Skell
    Steve I have to say that I think this one is a little nit picky. They aren't flat out lies to your face bullsh1t. They may be a little exaggerated but honestly tell me a politician in history that hasn't exaggerated a little, especially during an election year.
  • Mar 31, 2008, 06:37 PM
    BABRAM
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx
    Um, no Bobby, I'm referring to the present campaign.

    You titled the post painting it with a broad stroke "Can the Democrats tell the truth." I know it hurts the GOP to be reminded of the previous Bush vs McCain death match, but I felt obligated to my country. It was my patriotic duty. :rolleyes:


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx
    Are you serious? Where is the sleaze factor from McCain? Have you read any of the DNC emails? Paid attention to the Democratic candidates?

    And what part of "Currently the cleaner campaigns are ran by Obama and McCain, at least thus far," do you not understand? Steve, I gave your boy credit. John has to sit back and watch the Democrats for now, but don't think his negative tone doesn't resonate for pending dissension against Obama.

    Per John McCain: "I will … make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change that promises no more than a holiday from history and a return to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than the people."

    It's coming Steve. Hillary started trying to go after Barack on relative issues and then had to resort to toilet tricks. John's only problem will be developing new negatives since Hillary's wearing the subject out. See what I know is that John really wants this presidency, every bit as much as Hillary. This is John McCain's last hurrah.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx
    True, and kind of discredits your previous remarks my friend. :)

    Not at all. The Obama campaign compared to the Clinton campaign is heavenly. Obama has not gone after McCain except for issues that McCain himself has brought up and then John pays, and pays dearly. ;)
  • Apr 1, 2008, 04:49 AM
    George_1950
    Back to Hillary for a moment: "Is there no such thing as shame? Is there no decency at last?" The real harm Hillary Clinton inflicted on Bosnia. - By Christopher Hitchens - Slate Magazine
  • Apr 1, 2008, 05:18 AM
    George_1950
    As for Obama, I never really understood John Kerry's definition of 'nuance' until recently, which is, evidently, the willingness to lie with a straight face: Obama had greater role on liberal survey - Kenneth P. Vogel - Politico.com
  • Apr 1, 2008, 05:27 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx
    Can the Democrats tell the truth?

    Hello Steve:

    So, I'm willing to give your dufus in chief, the HEAD OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, a break in that he really thought Iraq had WMD's...

    But, during the first 4 years of the war, he kept telling us there was progress, where there was none.

    In my view, LYING about the war, where your sons and daughters are getting shot at, is a little worse than lying about your accomplishments...

    That's just me. I can tell the difference between a little lie, and A GREAT BIG WHOPPER!! You can't?? Dude!

    excon
  • Apr 1, 2008, 05:30 AM
    Allheart
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ScottGem
    The better question is can ANY politician tell the truth! Frankly I don't think so. A politician tells you what he thinks you want to hear or what he thinks will get him votes.

    LOL Scott, I said outloud the same words.

    Why do they do that. It's almost insulting in a way to think we buy into it all. Actually, it is.

    I bet the first one that stood up, spoke his or her mind, sharing his or her views and plans to keep America strong, I would bet they would win by a landslide.

    But then again, we all have to do our part as well and not vote along party lines. Not all do, but some, I think would never "cross over", so to speak.
  • Apr 1, 2008, 06:02 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Allheart
    I bet the first one that stood up, spoke his or her mind, sharing his or her views and plans to keep America strong, I would bet they would win by a landslide.

    A lot of people thought that was Ron Paul. Rarely has a candidate received so much support from the regular joe.
  • Apr 1, 2008, 06:04 AM
    tomder55
    NK ;why didn't they show up for him in the primaries and caucus' then ? He had his shot.
  • Apr 1, 2008, 06:05 AM
    NeedKarma
    Don't know.
  • Apr 1, 2008, 06:10 AM
    tomder55
    I do know. His support was actually limited and fringe. But they made a lot of noise ,were passionate ,and they are internet savy .
  • Apr 1, 2008, 06:10 AM
    Allheart
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma
    A lot of people thought that was Ron Paul. Rarely has a candidate received so much support from the regular joe.


    So then why? Why isn't he still in the running? I guess financial backing, which only adds to the problems.
  • Apr 1, 2008, 06:16 AM
    Allheart
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55
    NK ;why didn't they show up for him in the primaries and caucus' then ? He had his shot.

    Hi Tom,

    I have to admit myself, that the media focused so much on Hillary and Obama so much, that everyone else was in the shadows, and hard to even to be seen or even heard.

    I liked Edwards... a lot...

    I just hope we are going to be okay and move forward, no matter who gets in.
  • Apr 1, 2008, 06:17 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55
    I do know. His support was actually limited and fringe. But they made alot of noise ,were passionate ,and they are internet savy .

    Your country needs more people like that.
  • Apr 1, 2008, 06:24 AM
    tomder55
    Allheart . Edwards had as much name recognition going in as anyone in the race. Perhaps the people are not as moved by his populist 2 Americas rhetoric as he thought.
  • Apr 1, 2008, 06:26 AM
    Allheart
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55
    Allheart . Edwards had as much name recognition going in as anyone in the race. Perhaps the people are not as moved by his populist 2 Americas rhetoric as he thought.


    :) So what do you really think of Edwards Tom :) Just kidding.

    But the spotlight seemed to be on Hillary and Obama. You have to admit it was huge.
  • Apr 1, 2008, 07:15 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by BABRAM
    You titled the post painting it with a broad stroke "Can the Democrats tell the truth." I know it hurts the GOP to be reminded of the previous Bush vs McCain death match, but I felt obligated to my country. It was my patriotic duty. :rolleyes:

    Always helpful :)

    Quote:

    And what part of "Currently the cleaner campaigns are ran by Obama and McCain, at least thus far," do you not understand? Steve, I gave your boy credit. John has to sit back and watch the Democrats for now, but don't think his negative tone doesn't resonate for pending dissension against Obama.
    Sorry, you did - I need new glasses. Seriously, I can hardly see the screen any more, lol. That third glass of wine didn't help either :D

    Quote:

    Per John McCain: "I will … make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change that promises no more than a holiday from history and a return to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than the people."

    It's coming Steve. Hillary started trying to go after Barack on relative issues and then had to resort to toilet tricks. John's only problem will be developing new negatives since Hillary's wearing the subject out. See what I know is that John really wants this presidency, every bit as much as Hillary. This is John McCain's last hurrah.
    I have no doubt it's going to get uglier, I'm just baffled by all of these fantasies of Clinton and Obama. Do they really think we're that stupid?

    Quote:

    Not at all. The Obama campaign compared to the Clinton campaign is heavenly. Obama has not gone after McCain except for issues that McCain himself has brought up and then John pays, and pays dearly. ;)
    The only thing Obama seems to have on McCain is misrepresenting his "100 years" statement. Even the DNC has been howling for weeks about telling the 'truth' about the "real John McCain" and nothing has stuck. Not... one... thing.
  • Apr 1, 2008, 07:24 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Skell
    Steve I have to say that I think this one is a little nit picky. They aren't flat out lies to your face bullsh1t. They may be a little exaggerated but honestly tell me a politician in history that hasn't exaggerated a little, especially during an election year.

    Apparently you don't see the symbolism and emotions evoked in Obama relating his "very existence" to the Kennedys of Camelot while addressing civil rights activists in Selma and telling them:

    Quote:

    "So the Kennedys decided 'we're going to do an airlift. We're going to go to Africa and start bringing young Africans over to this country and give them scholarships to study so they can learn what a wonderful country America is.' This young man named Barack Obama got one of those tickets and came over to this country. He met this woman whose great-great-great-great-grandfather had owned slaves. . . . So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born."
    That's BS if ever I heard it. And you know, it wasn't me but the Washington Post, one of the most liberal papers in the country that broke this story. Apparently they thought it was worth mentioning.
  • Apr 1, 2008, 07:52 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon
    Hello Steve:

    So, I'm willing to give your dufus in chief, the HEAD OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, a break in that he really thought Iraq had WMD's...

    Someone pick me up off the floor...

    Quote:

    That's just me. I can tell the difference between a little lie, and A GREAT BIG WHOPPER!! You can't?? Dude!
    Sure I can. I also know that while Bush claimed progress in Iraq he also acknowledged on many occasions there were setbacks, there was more work to do, that he knew the American people weren't satisfied with the situation and that he wasn't either. Nevertheless, I'm not happy with how things went in Iraq and have been critical of Bush... but he is the president we have now. You should know I'm not pleased with any of the choices, but I have to wonder why anyone should trust these two Democrats that can't seem to stop making stuff up all of a sudden as the NEXT president.
  • Apr 1, 2008, 07:55 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
    No, after eight years of it, I'm definitely ready for a change.

    OK, I'll play along... in YOUR view do you want ANOTHER president that can't tell the difference between fact and fantasy. ;)
  • Apr 1, 2008, 07:59 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx
    OK, I'll play along...in YOUR view do you want ANOTHER president that can't tell the difference between fact and fantasy. ;)

    Considering McCain is another Bush then the answer is a big NO!
  • Apr 1, 2008, 08:10 AM
    Allheart
    I'm with Ordinary Guy - I'm ready for a change as well.

    Not that I dislike President Bush, he's my President, and Commander in Chief at the moment, so I respect him as much.

    I also think it takes more then one man to cause all of this upset and kind of feel bad that it all lays on his shoulders.

    I do wonder in his personal private moments, how he feels about it all. It must get to him.
    I just hope, that although, there are so many that may disagree with his choices, that he, feels he did his personal best. I am just grateful I am not in those shoes, that's for sure.

    I just hope that the next President, can bring more harmony, both domestically and abroad.
  • Apr 1, 2008, 08:40 AM
    George_1950
    Politics is definitely a 'grown-up's sport', especially for the participants. The office of President of the United States is no place for pathogenic liars or inexperienced wannabes with an identity crisis.
    I recall just after 9/11, President Bush said that he was dedicating the remainder of his presidency to winning the war on terror. You might recall that the U.S. had done most nothing about terrorism during the Clinton years, other than create a firewall between intelligence sharing between CIA and FBI. That is when I first thought that Bush might be a little 'extreme'; now, it appears he was prophetic.
    Lying seems to me endemic with Democrats: Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama. If I were a Democrat, I would say, 'Sure, all politicians lie.'
    And, there are different kinds of lies, such as the lie Nixon got caught up in, in a cover-up of what happened on his watch. But I have no recollection of Reagan lying, though partisans will say he did; and I have no recollection of W lying, either as candidate or president.
    excon wants to make an issue with Bush giving progress reports on the war in Iraq, as if they were lies. But isn't Bush the 'captain' of his team? Isn't the captain supposed to keep his team focused and involved? And playing to win? As for the progress reports being misleading or in error, did anyone anticipate the role played by Iran? What has Hillary or Obama or Pelosi or Reid had to say about Iran interfering in Iraq? What has the UN done about it?
  • Apr 1, 2008, 08:53 AM
    Allheart
    George, I so agree that in the years prior to President Bush, there were areas, seriously lacking attention, to the point of almost disgrace.

    One thing I do admire about him, he continued his path despite all the lashing, whether earned or not. No caving, nothing.

    I honestly do thank him and am grateful to anyone that holds or has held that position.

    Just wish all the mudsligging and falsehoods would be no longer. I live in a dream world, I know.
  • Apr 1, 2008, 09:19 AM
    BABRAM
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55
    NK ;why didn't they show up for him in the primaries and caucus' then ? He had his shot.


    I would had gone about managing Ron Paul's campaign differently. Some of it has to do with R. Paul being very good at getting his points across, one on one, which he didn't do enough of. The other problem is he ran into was that he simply was ostracized by other top candidates in the Republican party and not invited to some of the primary debates. I don't know what kind of budget R. Paul was working on, I'm sure smaller than others. But he needed more appearances in interview situations nationally and that could had helped. His fewer numbers in votes doesn't represent the man's ideas as bad. Bush was selected twice in charge of our country and yet now his ratings have plunged even among those that voted him.
  • Apr 1, 2008, 09:24 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Allheart
    I'm with Ordinary Guy - I'm ready for a change as well.

    Not that I dislike President Bush, he's my President, and Commander in Chief at the moment, so I respect him as much.

    I also think it takes more then one man to cause all of this upset and kinda feel bad that it all lays on his shoulders.

    I do wonder in his personal private moments, how he feels about it all. It must get to him.
    I just hope, that although, there are so many that may disagree with his choices, that he, feels he did his personal best. I am just grateful I am not in those shoes, that's for sure.

    I just hope that the next President, can bring more harmony, both domestically and abroad.

    Allheart, I think we're all ready for change. But contrary to what the left is saying we're going to get change whether we like it or not. McCain is NOT going to offer a "third Bush term" like Howard Dean and Obama keep saying.
  • Apr 1, 2008, 09:27 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma
    Considering McCain is another Bush then the answer is a big NO!

    Been listening to Obama and Howard Dean have you? Fortunately for us NK, it's not your choice to make :D
  • Apr 1, 2008, 09:30 AM
    NeedKarma
    I'll do my part to counter your constant negative posts and mudslinging... when I have the time (it's not my life's ambition as it is yours) :D
  • Apr 1, 2008, 09:58 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    I don't know what kind of budget R. Paul was working on, I'm sure smaller than others.
    He led in fund raising by a long shot. Just another example that money can't buy the Presidency.

    He was only excluded in later debates after it was clear that he was marginal and only taking time away from serious contenders. Since the networks for right or wrong host the debates they are played under their game rules.

    Again ;I don't think that was decisive because his campaign was just not resonating with the majority of the Republican voters. As for his exposure ;he was a frequent guest on the various FOX broadcasts . Not sure about the other networks ;but the only Republican it seems who are welcome there are John McCain and any other Republican who opposes various aspects of the Bush Presidency .

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:15 PM.