+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 01/18/2018 03:06 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  1.776 Visits   2 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
11/01/2008 10:47 PM ID: 74474 Permalink   

McCain, Obama continue to lie has sifted through the mixed barrage of messages that both major presidential campaigns have been sending, and has cleared up many of the mistaken or deliberate misinformation being spread. Both campaigns are lying to some degree.

McCain criticized Obama of "spreading the wealth" when he has supported similar progressive tax reform. He also labeled Obama's tax refunds as "welfare," even though his health care plan also uses tax credits. Obama's tax credits require employment.

Obama's campaign has distorted the facts about how much McCain plans to cut from Medicare and Medicaid to cover health care. They also lied about McCain's stance on stem cell research. He was against it before 2001, but is for it now. More at source.

    WebReporter: Mr. Wright Show Calling Card      
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
  tip of the iceberg  
This is the second installment of an expose on the 2008 campaign. There is a lot more information in the source article.
  by: Mr. Wright     11/01/2008 10:48 PM     
They're both liars.
You know this makes me think of the merkly/smith campaigns in Oregon. They post all these smears against each other, basically revealing to the world that they are both crooks.

"Jeff merkly voted to raise taxes, heres a video of him saying so!"
"Oh yeah? well Gordon smith has voted with Bush, even though he doesn't really anymore"
"Yeah, yeah? well ..."

Thanks for just proving why I shouldn't vote for either of you.. thats what I would say.
  by: skittlesloli   11/01/2008 10:59 PM     
  All politicians lie  
You just have to compare the lies. I see a lot of hypocrisy coming from McCain's camp. Obama's camp seems to distort the facts to their advantage.
  by: Mr. Wright     11/01/2008 11:01 PM     
  ROFL @ skittlesloli  
There are some things I don't miss about my beloved P-Town, I guess ;)
  by: Rajl Al-Mumtir   11/01/2008 11:01 PM     
My favorite commercial here in Portland is the one proclaiming that the opponent is "Just too liberal" that one cracks me up.
  by: deadvenusblue     11/01/2008 11:27 PM     
"Thanks for just proving why I shouldn't vote for either of you.. thats what I would say."

If we had more than two to choose from for president, it'd be the same way at the federal level.
  by: erasedgod   11/02/2008 12:08 AM     
  we do  
we're just told not to vote for them.
  by: skittlesloli   11/02/2008 12:27 AM     
  It just floors me  
... this idea of totally honest presidential candidates flooding the country if only third parties were more popular. I just keep picturing McKinney, Barr, Baldwin, Nader and, oh yeah, RON PAUL with harps and halos.

Why vote for a lesser evil? Oh, that's right, because if you don't, you end up with the greater evil. If it comes to a decision between a slap in the face and a knife to the gut, I'll take the slap, thanks very much.
  by: l´anglais     11/02/2008 01:09 AM     
It wouldn't be that way if they were given as much attention as the Rs and the Ds.
I mean, if the media gave them enough credit, people would take them more seriously and demand more information.

Its not hard to understand... or maybe it is.
  by: skittlesloli   11/02/2008 01:23 AM     
Perhaps I understand better than you -- because if the *people* gave third parties more credit, the *media* would take them more seriously and demand more information.
  by: l´anglais     11/02/2008 01:47 AM     
  here we go 'round  
Most people don't know about any third party candidates and all of the people I've talked with didn't regard the third party as important simply because the media didn't give them information.

So if the media gave more information, the people would care more.
Face it, most Americans are too stupid or lazy to really look into all parties, they want the easy to understand snippets they get from the news and debates.
  by: skittlesloli   11/02/2008 02:06 AM     
  so Vote Ralph Nader or  
Ralph Nader (CT)

Gloria E. LaRiva (California)

Brian P. Moore (Florida)

Cynthia McKinney

other third parties, libertarian etc. at

It would also be good to see what the third parties had to say in answer to the debate questions. (video) and (audio)
  by: MmmMan     11/02/2008 02:55 AM     
Third party candidates may not bring 100% honesty, but, as I see it, it'd be really hard to fund dirt-digging / smear campaigns against 10 other candidates. (In my imagination) the candidates would actually have to speak about the issues and the benefits of their candidacies as oppose just hoping they can out-slander the other guy.
  by: erasedgod   11/02/2008 03:25 AM     
  The only solution  
to get third-party candidates on the same playing field as the major candidates would be ... drum-roll please ... BIG GOVERNMENT!!!!!

Otherwise, money is always going to be an issue. The big parties can afford national advertising; the third-parties can't. Unless you were to nationalize the broadcast networks and guarantee access to all candidates who meet certain criteria, the parties with money are going to get the exposure.

But I stand by my point earlier -- it's up to third parties to get enough people interested in their platforms that the media starts to take notice. The media operates as a business to attract eyeballs to advertising; it's not going to decide to cover third-party candidates unless it thinks a lot of people are interested.
  by: l´anglais     11/02/2008 06:41 AM     
  Complete Rundown of Every Candidate  
  by: Kolman   11/02/2008 06:41 AM     
I think you're right. The Democrats and the Republicans are both halos bearing lessors of evil. That makes a lot of sense. Except when you think. When you say "lessor of 2 evils" you are explicitly reffering to the 2 parties being evil.

Most campaign money comes from donors, so your argument that bigger government would be necessary makes no sense. So then you'd argue that is proof the people decided. Which you are right.

People are lazy. the only reason people have to choose a lessor of evils is sheer laziness. The political parties get the ball rolling, people start paying attention about mid way through, then get all passionate for a day or two but would last five seconds on camera discussing real issues, then they go back to sleep. A few people like you exist who like slaps to the face, so you vote for the slap. The sleepy folk just toss their vote in some direction. Certainly they act passionate, but I've never seen someone defend a pro- Ron Paul or pro- Nader position and say half a dumb generic crap as I see for pro 2 party people "He'll make a real difference" "He's looking out for the little guy" "Their pary cares about the minorities" these are the idiots reasoning for 2 parties, whereas a 3rd party supporter would have actual reasons. The necessity of knowing what the hell people are actually voting for is the filter between 2 party voters and 3rd party voters.

The media makes sure of this. Certainly it isn't the media's job to inform everyone, people SHOULD inform themselves. But they don't, a representative deomocracy has that effect.

Or do you seriously want to argue the entire party of Democrats or Republicans, regardless of who you are SPECIFICALLY reffering to, is implicitly more qualified to be in any position over any 3rd party candidate, in the past, present, or future, because the standards are soooo high? Really? That doesn't sound dumb to you? I guess all the best people in America join up with Dems and Reps, who are then only as much liars as anybody else. Humanity be damned and all that.
  by: promontorium   11/02/2008 09:45 AM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: