Maybe they should get Fox News to call them liars.

Maybe they should get Fox News to call them liars.

Speaking of liars, it looks like the truth is finally coming out about Cindy Lou's drug abuse and Gramps McCain's attemps to cover it up:

* * * * * * * * * *

Whistleblower breaks 15-year silence to allege McCain hid wife's drug abuse

Cindy McCain's addiction to prescription painkillers emerged into public view 14 years ago with a well-orchestrated PR campaign designed to preserve her husband's political future.

Aside from a lengthy contemporary investigation from Phoenix's alternative weekly and occasional mentions since then, the addiction back-story -- including ample questions about what John McCain knew, when he knew it and questions over whether he was complicit in the cover-up -- has gone largely untold. Until now.

Tom Gosinski, a former employee of the medical-aid charity Cindy McCain used as personal supplier of Percocet and Vicodin, is speaking out publicly for the first time.

On Wednesday, Gosinski sat down with RAW STORY and other outlets to tell his story and distribute copies of his personal journal from his time with the American Voluntary Medical Team in the last half of 1992, where he voiced ever more acute concerns and frustrations over McCain's drug use and its impact on her mood and job performance.

<more>

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Whistleblower_breaks_15year_silence_to_allege_0911.html

You think we should trade jabs on candidate's personal lives until our fingers fall off? Because we could.

Instead of talking about Cindy McCain, let's talk about why Obama is blaming McCain for the recent economic issues when two of his senior economic advisors were former Fannie Mae execs. OR, that Obama was the #2 receipient of donations from Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac in 2007. Oops.

(Dick Durbin #1.)

Dex,

Links, facts, anything?

Dex never has any facts - just what he hears on the radio.  I heard Jeff Christie talking about that when i was out of the office at lunchtime today.....

Apparently, Obama's advisors and his contributions are responsible for the current crappy economy. Somehow. It probably sounded real good when Rush said it.

Check this out.

John McCain, May 2006 before the Senate: 

"I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation."

Read the rest here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190

Now guess who didn't support it? As much as I hate to say it, score one for McCain.

Hey, we could also talk about how Merrill Lynch is a lead contributor to McCain, and how one of his advisors was involved in the issues leading to this market meltdown!

If you can link Obama's advisors to the collapse of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, please enlighten us. I'd really like to learn as much about this as I can.

So far, the only name that keeps popping us is Phil Graham, the architect of deregulation. The man who was McCain's chief economic advisor until he said that we were in a "mental" recession and that we're a nation of whiners.

I'd be the first to admit, I know nothing about economics. Evidently you know as little as I do.

The difference between you and me is that I'm willing to do some research and try to get to the bottom of this. You, on the other hand are fed talking points that you can parrot endlessly thinking that some will be swayed by your arguments.

If I'm wrong, please provide anything that explains how Durbin is more responsible for the collapse of our economy than Phil Graham is.

If I'm wrong, please provide anything that explains how Durbin is more responsible for the collapse of our economy than Phil Graham is.

Interesting that you mention Phil Gramm - the World's Ugliest Politician.  His wife was on the Board of Directors at Enron......

Two words moron: PHIL. GRAHAM.

One more: DEREGULATION.

Fannie and Freddie weren't the problem.  Bad business practices that wouldn't have been allowed before PHIL GRAHAM and his boys gutted the regulatoryt bodies is what coused this.  And John McSame subscribes to the same philosphy.  (Hell, he HIRED THE GUY!)  So don't try to confuse anyone, and don't let yourself be deluded... It's REPUBLICANS and REPUBLICAN PHILOSPHY that caused this.  The Democrats are only to blame in as much as SOME of them were duped into supporting the same philosphy.  Their is blame is directly proportional to how much like Republican's they've become.  John McCain can't fix this mess, becasue he doesn't really want to.

The entire article is sympathetic to Biden, from his point of view. I don't see the author "critically" reporting on Biden's claims contained in the article.  This whole "uncritical" pedestal that MMFA preaches from is misplaced.  As long as the author identifies clearly who is sayng what and from what partisan ideological viewpoint it orignates, the reader is not misinformed at all. It's called straight news reporting.

You obviously didn't read the same article.

I would hope that if we read the same article that I would not come away with the same impression as you, that would worry me.

The issue is exactly the "uncritical" nature of their reporting.

When they don't report that it's untrue that most people will have their taxes raised, they forward the conservative agenda, by making Obama, a liberal, look worse than the way he deserves to look. A fair portrayal of Obama's tax plans would include both that he plans on ending the Bush Tax Cuts, which will raise taxes on wealthy people, AND adding other tax cuts that will give tax cuts to 95% of the rest of us.

If one is to make a blanket statement about Obama and taxes, the only fair comment to make is to say that he'll lower taxes, not that he'll raise taxes. If you're lowering taxes on 19 out of 20 people (95%), it's a gross distortion which doesn't paint an accurate portrait to say that he'll rais taxes!!!

A critical look at the McCain's campaign's false allegations is an absolute imperative for the media. And an absence of a critical evaluation is a disgrace for the media when they turn the fact that 19 out of 20 will see their taxes go down into a tax increase!

And how can you say that the average reader is not misinformed when a "McCain spokesman's claims that Obama would "raise taxes"? When 19 out of 20 will see their taxes go down, how can you say that the average reader isn't misinformed when the media doesn't point out that misinformation?

The quote from the McCain spokesman did promote the constantly repeated idea that Obama will raise everybody's taxes. As a self-described potential Obama supporter, this may have troubled Tommy.

But the quote also included the conservative theme of lowering taxes on the rich to make everybody happy, which may have overridden any objections Tommy had.

The economy simplified, and I think the second  Simpsons reference today; I caught an episode last night where homer squandered all of the families Xmas money on an extravagant and unnecessary gadget for himself.

Homer J. explained the trickle-down effect thusly "When I'm happy, I'm less abusive to the rest of the family"

Amazing how many of the solutions to life's problems can be found in old Simpson's episodes.

Here's a quiz. Who said the following, John McCain or Abe Simpson?

"Dear Advertisers, I am disgusted with the way old people are depicted on television. We are not all vibrant, fun loving sex maniacs. Many of us are bitter, resentful individuals who remember the good old days when entertainment was bland and inoffensive. The following is a list of words I never want to hear on television again. Number one: bra. Number two: horny. Number three: family jewels."

Col;

My "simplified objections" have nothing to do with Obama's or McCain's economic plans, but you knew that.  Even though I disagree with Obama on raising taxes on anyone, there are other reasons for my supporting him, many of which I have explained here plenty.  I am not a one issue voter and disagreements are fine, as long as integrity, honesty and working to solve problems, the bigger picture, is preeminent.  I realize many here can't compute moving away from ideology and partisan loyalty, can you imagine any of you voting other than strict Democrat, I won't hear of it!!

In any event, my post went to the relevance of this topic and MMFA's "uncritical" finger pointing at articles where they expect the reporter to not just report and identify statements from partisans, but be the judge and jury and put on the commentator hat as well and be critical of stuff they just don't like.  It's all good though.......if you can find more animation references to shore up your point, by all means.  :)

Tommy I've voted every year since 1972 and I've only voted straight Democratic twice in my life. 2000 and 2004.

I will be doing the same in 2008.

I wasn't having any trouble understanding your post, Tommy. I was just giving my theory as to why you defend these "lies of omission" in certain situations.I'm allowed to have opinions too, right?.

I will admit that it's hard yo imagine many here voting other than Democratic, but I don't think that's so much the blind ideology you're suggesting as a result of living through the past 8 years. I've never been registered with a political party, and voted third party more times than not, but I've become pretty much a straight - Dem voter in recent years, thanks mostly to the GOP.

Col, When a reporter clearly identifies who is saying what, clearly identifies who that person is aligned with or supporting poltically, then there is no "lie of omission", that is absurd. 

If the reader can't figure out it may be suspect to a truth and a "no spin" test, then that reader is woefully out of touch and no amount of spoon feeding from some reporter would ever be adequate. 

Ode to the Propaganda by Tommy.

Hi Tommy,

The American public, as a whole, in my opinion, is woefully out of touch.  53% of us think that he will raise taxes on the middle class as of August 26.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109816/Half-Americans-Expect-Obama-Raise-Their-Taxes.aspx

Sure, Fried, but it's not the media's job to comment when the Mccain campaign deliberately encourages that misinformation, the American people should know that it's a lie, by hearing it from..uhh. the media.. wait...

Check and mate.

Wait, let me get a surprised look on my face  8-)

Obama plays on the idiocy of the American voter. He knows the numbers. He's had the study groups. So what if he says that he'll cut taxes on 95% of American households. We all know that's impossible to do, especially when 46% or so (from memory) pay NO TAXES at all. Now tell me how do you cut a tax liability that stands at zero? You can't. We know that. Obama knows that. Hell, maybe even the media knows that. But the focus groups and surveys of the "Average American Voter" reveal that this promise puts a smile on their faces, thus resulting in a "falling chad" for the Obama camp. They all talk to us like we're the average American Idol watching idiot that is so common today. 

Tommy – your first comment:  The entire article is sympathetic to Biden, from his point of view. I don't see the author "critically" reporting on Biden's claims contained in the article.   

What?  How is the article by MMFA sympathetic to Biden?  It only quotes what the Detroit paper said about Biden.  Could you please give more detail?

 

Then you say:  Col, When a reporter clearly identifies who is saying what, clearly identifies who that person is aligned with or supporting poltically, then there is no "lie of omission", that is absurd. 

 

Okay….are you saying you want every reporter to claim a party before they interview or make comments about a topic/person?  Or are you trying to say that by words you can figure out who a reporter is bias too?  I have no clue what you are trying to say….

"What?  How is the article by MMFA sympathetic to Biden?  It only quotes what the Detroit paper said about Biden.  Could you please give more detail?

He's saying the Detroit News article is sympathetic to Biden. 

"Okay….are you saying you want every reporter to claim a party before they interview or make comments about a topic/person?  Or are you trying to say that by words you can figure out who a reporter is bias too?  I have no clue what you are trying to say…."

What he's saying here is that if you identify someone as a McCain supporter, then readers will automatically distrust them because of it.  So MMfA doesn't need to highlight "uncritical reporting" regarding what those partisans say, because readers should know better on their own.

Yes, it's stupid.

It's especially amusing because in the past, MMfA highlighted an incident where a political spokesperson said something factual and the media didn't show that those facts were true, which made it look like typical partisan spin.  In that case, Tommy criticized MMfA for not trusting the political spokesperson.

Don't worry about not understanding what Tommy thinks, he's pretty fuzzy on it himself.

I realize many here can't compute moving away from ideology and partisan loyalty, can you imagine any of you voting other than strict Democrat, I won't hear of it!!

Tommy, that is what I have been trying to say, why everyone can not be objective is beyond me. I get attacked as being some GOP hack when I plan on voting for Obama, does not mean I do not respect McCain. I remember how Bush smeared him in 2000.

In case you haven't noticed, Gramps today is nothing like Gramps 2000.

True, but that does not mean I can not respect him.

"True, but that does not mean I can not respect him"

Personally, I lost most respect for him when he let the Bush campaign walk all over him like that.  I lost the rest of it when he signed on to using the same tactics that were used against him.

He doesn't deserve courtesy, let along respect.

Other than his service, Bob, what do you respect about McCain these days?

Way to go Detroit News!  Roll over!  Play dead!  Keep showing that respect and deference!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMwDq73gbm4

A little off topic, but worth a discussion, agreed?

Well worth a discussion among a group of idiots. You should round up some like-minded friends and have that discussion.

Lets agree to one thing before discussing the misleading ad:  As long as Repugs are getting aborted whats the problem?

Good point. I found the woman in the ad very unpleasant, not a good choice for their purposes. I would rather she didn't exist to nag me with her nasty tone.

Dodging forceps in the womb will do that to you!

Do what? Reduce you to posting Love is... cartoons?

 When the economy is in a downturn, higher taxes are not the answer."

Well, folks, this is the latest talking point.  Even though taxes for 90% of the people are NOT going to be raised, there's no mention as to who CAUSED the downturn with deregulation, borrowing, and war-mongering.

But since everybody should know the truth, there's no reason "journalists' should have any pressure put on them to point out BS. To do so would be rabidly partisan.

If anybody needs me for a moment, I will be over at MRC waiting to see when they highlight this exact same article;

"The Detroit News uncritically reported Obama campaign claims that the McCain's campaign tactics are "vile", "disgraceful" and "dishonest smears".

"vile," "disgraceful" and "dishonest smears."

Subjective.  Opinion.

Obama's plans to raise taxes

Objective.  Fact.

End of lesson. 

 

Obama's plans to raise taxes.

Fact.  Unless you can show me where he has no plans to raise anyone's taxes, you will need the lesson.  Teach thyself.

Case closed.

It's not a question of whether he's going to tax the rich or not.  You're trying to equate statements that can be objectively disputed with opinions.  And this is coming from someone who often criticizes people for not being able to tell the difference.

Huh?  Does Obama plan to raise taxes or not?  

If Obama planned on raising taxes on billionaires, would it be fair to make the general comment that he was going to raise taxes?  Would anyone really assume that it meant just billionaires?

You sidestepped the question, when you want to answer it "yes" or "no", let me know.

Sorry, I'm not compelled to answer whatever question you feel like asking (or however you've phrased that before).  Your question is dishonest.  The statements give the impression that there are significant if not across-the-board tax increases, which is simply not true.

"Your question is dishonest"

Now that is hysterical.  Dishonest?  It requires a simple yes or no answer and you can't do it.  Sorry, this is not your make believe courtroom where you can play lawyer and ask all the questions and never answer any.  Your shiftiness only displays your dishonesty, and your cute little litigation games you looooooove to play.

Play elsewhere.....oh, and if you don't ever want to answer a direct question, I suggest you steer clear of my posts, then you won't have to be called on your hypocrisy.

You're insane.  I answer questions all the time, as long as they're honest.  There is such a thing as a dishonest question, which means that a "yes or no answer" is not warranted.  "Do you still beat your wife?"  Either way, the assertion of battery is there.  Similarly, a "yes" answer to your question would allow you to say that the comments were justified, while they were clearly misleading, and a "no" answer would be untrue.

When you quit being dishonest, then there won't be any need for calling you on it.

Looky below at the esteemed Colonel's answer to my question.  It wasn't hard for him, but then he doesn't run around these boards trying to corral posters on to the stand for a fun game of courtroom witness tomfoolery, like you do.

It's like watching a bush-league league version of Court TV.

I saw it, he made the same point I'm making.  Also note I asked what your point in asking the question was, which is an honest question I expect you won't answer.

You want me to answer a question after you refuse to answer mine?  Mine was a direct question, it was not about beating one's wife, which you foolishly analogized it was.  Drop it Brab, you haven't yet answered it and you are once again trying to divert the discussion away from your dishonesty.  I have seen it over and over from you, I am not impressed anymore.  Move on.

"Direct" doesn't mean "honest".  You were acting as if Obama's plan to raise taxes on a slim margin of people justified the comments cited here.   That doesn't get "yes" or "no" as a response.  And if you had some motive for asking the question besides deceit, you should be able to say what it was.

"You were acting as if Obama's plan to raise taxes on a slim margin of people justified the comments cited here"

I was?  Hmm, Your dishonest implication of what I was "asking as if" is ridiculous.  You can find more ways to squirm away from a direct answer can't you?  I'll give you that much.  Let it go.......

So you were asking the question for no purpose at all.  It had no relevance to the discussion at all.

Got it. 

MMFA headline; The Detroit News uncritically reported Republican claims that Obama would "raise taxes"

My question; "Does Obama plan to raise taxes or not?"  - tommy / Tuesday September 16, 2008 3:19:25 PM ED.

Yep, no relevance or purpose to the discussion at all.  You nailed it there Pardner' (I guess when you dodge the question about 5 times, you default to then calling the question irrelevant)

Me:"You were acting as if Obama's plan to raise taxes on a slim margin of people justified the comments cited here."

You:"I was?  Hmm, Your dishonest implication of what I was "asking as if" is ridiculous."

You:MMFA headline; The Detroit News uncritically reported Republican claims that Obama would "raise taxes"...My question; "Does Obama plan to raise taxes or not?"  - tommy / Tuesday September 16, 2008 3:19:25 PM ED.

You just admitted that you were trying to justify the comments in question, like I said you were.  Nice job.

Dodge #6, three more and you can put your own team on the field.

"You just admitted that you were trying to justify the comments in question, like I said you were.  Nice job"

I did?  Hmm. your dishonest flat out falsehood is just as ridiculous.

Poor job.

Empty assertion, as usual.  Tell me how I'm wrong.

As for dodging, note this:"If Obama planned on raising taxes on billionaires, would it be fair to make the general comment that he was going to raise taxes?  Would anyone really assume that it meant just billionaires?"

I don't have to answer a question yes or no if it doesn't merit a yes or no answer.  The above post clearly implied that Obama plans on raising taxes for some people, but that didn't justify comments about raising taxes in general.  That's the same thing Col. said, just expressed differently.

You're smart enough to grasp that, and considering that you didn't question the relevance of that comment I'm quite sure you did.  But if you want to say that I'm compelled to answer any question in the strict manner you demand, then you'll be playing by the same rules.

You; ""If Obama planned on raising taxes on billionaires".

The reason your question above did not get an answer is because it is an extreme hypothetical.  Or unless you can prove that Obama is only raising taxes on those making over $999,999,999.99.   It deserved nothing more than I gave it.

Me; "Does Obama plan to raise taxes or not?" Simple, direct, easy.

You; As of this posting, dodge #7.

Give up, your diversion attempts have failed at every turn, the absurdity of your desperation is not in your best interest.

So let me get this straight.  You didn't answer my question at all because it was a hypothetical, and that's supposedly fine.  But I don't answer your question with a "yes or no answer" because it required more than a simple "yes or no answer" and you repeatedly whine about it.

I guess I could just say I gave your question no more than it deserved.  By your standards, you're done.

Still waiting on your explanation of how I made some "flat out falsehood", by the way.

I am all bruised up over trying to deflect your dodging all over the place today.  Best you take your ball and go home, try again another day when you can "play" honestly.  We'll just chalk this up to a bad day, no need to mention it again.  

It's not dodging if you don't deserve an answer, like you said.  Your own words work against you, as happens so often.

And he claims that it's you who takes your ball home when the rules don't go your way? Hilarious.

If one is making a generalization about whether or not Obama will raise taxes, the answer is no. When one evaluates the probability of something, 95% is the gold standard. He won't raise the taxes of 95% of taxpayers.

The only way they get away with this comment is by harping on the removal of the Bush tax cuts. As I have pointed out countless times, if that was all he was going to do, then they'd be right. But he's not just going to end the Bush tax cuts. He's also going to implement other tax cuts. And it's those proposed tax cuts that they ignore. They pretend since those tax cuts haven't actually been passed, they don't count, but somehow, a removal of the Bush tax cuts that also hasn't yet happened does count.

Give it up, Tommy. that wasn't a sidestep. You've just ended up exactly where every conservative seems to end up on this issue. Yes, by ending the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest 2%, or whatever it is, Obama would effectivle raise some taxes.

But that's a childish take on it. When the media talkers or GOP candidates or others at the convention tell a huge crowd "Obama will raise your taxes!", the intent is clear. Technically, they could be addressing that tiny percentage of Americans, but to pretend that that is the effect they want is just playing games.

"Yes, by ending the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest 2%, or whatever it is, Obama would effectivle raise some taxes".

Thank you Colonel, that was all I was asking Brab.  Maybe you can give him a quick lesson on to answer honestly, and not play The Trial Lawyer Two-Step, he just falls over himself anyway.  :)

 

So what was your point in asking the question, then?

Yes, by ending the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest 2%, or whatever it is, Obama would effectivle raise some taxes. - Col. Harlan Sanders

I disagree with that.  The only ones who took any actions that will result in those taxes going up are WPE Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress that passed and approved the legislation that will cause it to happen.  When those temporary tax cuts expire and those taxes go up it will be more because of Bush than it will Obama.

Quite aside from that fact, it is incredibly dishonest to make the overly simplistic charge that Obama will increase taxes when the actuality is so much more complex.

If we want to get real technical it will be congress who does not approve the extension of the bill giving tax cuts to the rich, therefore, whoever is president will not be responsible for the tax increase, re-instatement of taxes, or whatever we are calling it ~ it will be congress.  Not Obama and Not McCaine.

That's kind of a grey area.  Is this a case where the next Congress choosing not to act is more responsible for the tax cuts expiring than is the Congress that took the affirmative action of writing in those expiration dates?  I think the greater responsibility lies with the original Congress and the president who signed the tax legislation.  If the next Congress and president let those cuts expire, they're just following the intent of the original legislation.

Very true.....

Huh?  Does Obama plan to raise taxes or not?  

• - tommy / Tuesday September 16, 2008 3:19:25 PM EDT

 

If you require a "yes" or "no" answer, then the answer is "no". He won't raise taxes on 19 out of 20 taxpayers. If there's no nuance allowed, then the answer is "no". When he's talking to the masses, 95% of the time (probably more like 99% of the time with most of his audiences), they will not be seeing higher taxes. They will be seeing lower taxes from Obama than they will be from McCain.

McCain can't handle a fair examination of the facts, because on this issue, as with so many others, the righties can't win on the facts, because the facts are against them. So they try to win on distortions and lies and emotions.

" When the economy is in a downturn, higher taxes are not the answer."

Good pick-up foghorn. It's a new take on the same old con line. But you know, never mind that one of McCain's chief economic advisors, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, has said that the next president will have to raise taxes.

Raise taxes on the rich, which Obama will do, still voting for him Tommy?  They need to pay for the last 8 years of their free ride.

Yep, BHO goin' to raise taxes on the rich, give cuts to the middle class and below and the debt will grow $1.5 trillion less than under JSM's plan (but the debt still goes up, but I guess thats ok if its under a D administration).  What does it take for politicians to get the nerve to tell us we all have to sacrifice to reduce the debt? Surely, they can't offend the 50%+ that will get cuts and continue to re-elect those that lead us down the path to destruction.