Ok, so there's no sex. But as we're all aware, there are plenty of lies in politics. Normally I loathe FOXNews and its ridiculous sensationalist tactics--'Fair and Balanced' my foot. However, I couldn't help but find their three-part piece on lies and half-truths told by the three major presidential candidates to be rather interesting, for a variety of reasons.
The articles:
Clinton
McCain
Obama
The first thing that comes to mind is that FOXNews really has to reach for some of the 'lies' reported in each of the three pieces. Should we really care that Clinton lied about being named after Sir Edmund Hillary? Does it matter in the least that Obama's parents didn't actually meet at the civil rights march in Selma, Alabama?
I do, however, find it interesting that among the three candidates, there appears to be a clear demarcation of whose lies are the most serious in nature. Items in each of the three lists range from the irrelevant (such as the two examples I listed above) to the outrageous (such as McCain's assertion that Iran has been training Al Qaeda operatives).
If we can assume that these articles are accurate (which is a big assumption when dealing with the media and especially FOXNews) then McCain, in my opinion, appears to be the most serious offender, with Clinton coming in a close second. The false statements they have made as reported here are of a nature which could be extremely detrimental to the American people if either were actually elected, assuming such lies would continue.
The report on Obama, on the other hand, indicates that while he has spoken falsely on a number of occasions, several of these incidents can simply be chalked up to semantics (i.e. 'professor' vs. 'lecturer') or blurry childhood memories (i.e. the Life Magazine article). In the cases where Obama did misspeak, apparently intentionally, the lies he told don't suggest illegal or immoral behavior on his part. In fact, his only statement that might arguably be shady has to do with the senator receiving lobbyist money, but this is certainly not on par with Clinton's Whitewater scandal and McCain's Middle East and abortion nonsense.
23 May 2008
13 March 2008
Why is foreign aid a foreign concept?
Today I was forwarded what might be the most ridiculous thing I've seen this year. The following are excerpts (together with my comments) from an uber-Conservative diatribe against the US giving foreign aid to developing nations.
The author of the original piece is David A. Keene of the American Conservative Union.
Yes, clearly "the liberals" just want all Americans to be poor! Why didn't we see this before?!
Well I'm certainly glad that Mr. Keene used unbiased and completely reliable (yet unnamed) "conservative sources" for his attack against a bill proposed by a Democratic senator! I would have been worried that I wasn't getting the whole story!
It seems completely reasonable to me to be so concerned about how much the US spends on foreign aid while having no problem whatsoever with the enormous amounts of money flowing from the US into Israel. Perhaps foreign aid becomes money worth spending when it's used to help kill Palestinian Arabs? Why eradicate poverty in developing countries when we can focus all our resources on eradicating an entire group of people in the name of fighting terrorism? Why help people in need when we've got ours?
If I wasn't so sure that Mr. Keene had done proper research using the most reliable sources, I might have accused him of fearmongering. I'm sure he has loads and loads of rock-solid evidence (that he just hasn't shown us) that if the US were to close its collective eyes, point anywhere on a map, and send aid to the selected country, that money would only be used to buy another gold-plated Rolls Royce for some cackling handlebar-mustachioed Third World Supervillain. Poor countries are always, without exception, ruled by tyrant dictators who would like nothing better than to steal from America's coffers!
Indeed. Everyone knows that improving the quality of life for poor people around the world will only lead to the US losing its autonomy!
You... you mean this whole 'article' was just a poorly disguised, paranoid Orwellian rant about the UN? Say it isn't so! That dig against Iran was so cleverly nestled in there that I almost missed it, but the only thing that could have improved Mr. Keene's argument would be a more detailed unmasking of Barack HUSSEIN Obama.
The author of the original piece is David A. Keene of the American Conservative Union.
"How do liberals fight poverty? They make more people poor.
No, it makes no sense whatsoever, but if you're a liberal, it's a viable solution... after all, it's 'fair'."
Yes, clearly "the liberals" just want all Americans to be poor! Why didn't we see this before?!
"Of course, we're talking about the newest liberal-inspired plan to allow a United Nations style tax on American citizens.
It's the Global Poverty Act (S.2433), and according to some conservative sources, this sickening bill could potentially force the United States to spend as much as $845,000,000,000.00 on welfare to third-world countries."
Well I'm certainly glad that Mr. Keene used unbiased and completely reliable (yet unnamed) "conservative sources" for his attack against a bill proposed by a Democratic senator! I would have been worried that I wasn't getting the whole story!
"$845 BILLION is hardly a drop in the bucket and, yes, that's in addition to our Foreign Aid programs, which, in 2006, cost American taxpayers almost $300 BILLION!"
It seems completely reasonable to me to be so concerned about how much the US spends on foreign aid while having no problem whatsoever with the enormous amounts of money flowing from the US into Israel. Perhaps foreign aid becomes money worth spending when it's used to help kill Palestinian Arabs? Why eradicate poverty in developing countries when we can focus all our resources on eradicating an entire group of people in the name of fighting terrorism? Why help people in need when we've got ours?
"But make no mistake -- for those of us who are compassionate -- you can be sure that most of that money will do little to alleviate poverty or help the needy.
If we allow history to be our guide, we can be certain that the most of the money will be gobbled up by third-world tyrants and bureaucrats, who live in heavily guarded palaces and drive gold-plated Rolls-Royces while their people starve by the millions or die of preventable diseases."
If I wasn't so sure that Mr. Keene had done proper research using the most reliable sources, I might have accused him of fearmongering. I'm sure he has loads and loads of rock-solid evidence (that he just hasn't shown us) that if the US were to close its collective eyes, point anywhere on a map, and send aid to the selected country, that money would only be used to buy another gold-plated Rolls Royce for some cackling handlebar-mustachioed Third World Supervillain. Poor countries are always, without exception, ruled by tyrant dictators who would like nothing better than to steal from America's coffers!
"If the Democrat-controlled Congress passes this bill, the United States will have taken the first step toward the complete surrender of our national sovereignty."
Indeed. Everyone knows that improving the quality of life for poor people around the world will only lead to the US losing its autonomy!
"The amount of money alone should be sufficient to toss this bill into the Capitol Hill dumpster.
But more -- much more -- may be at stake, because this monstrous bill starts us down a very dangerous path!
Specifically, Obama's bill would require that the President: 'acting through the Secretary of State, and in consultation with the heads of other appropriate departments and agencies of the United States Government, international organizations, international financial institutions, the governments of developing and developed countries, United States and international nongovernmental organizations, civil society organizations, and other appropriate entities, shall develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further... the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal.'
And just who are these 'international organizations' and 'international nongovernmental organizations' and 'other appropriate entities?'
You guessed it!
To translate this gobbledygook, we're talking about the United Nations (among other things).
After all, the Millennium Development Goal is a United Nations creation. So essentially we'll do what the United Nations tells us to do -- something they don't have the right to do.
[...]
It's blood-boiling to see Members of the United States Senate -- like robots -- putting us into a position to carry out the whims of third-world despots and tyrants and crooks.
[...]
It's clearly time to break the kneecaps of the United Nations, before these third-world despots, tyrants, dictators and ayatollahs bankrupt us."
You... you mean this whole 'article' was just a poorly disguised, paranoid Orwellian rant about the UN? Say it isn't so! That dig against Iran was so cleverly nestled in there that I almost missed it, but the only thing that could have improved Mr. Keene's argument would be a more detailed unmasking of Barack HUSSEIN Obama.
31 January 2008
Dear Ron Paul: Bigotry is not a constitutional right
Ron Paul touts himself as a candidate who wants to get back to the Constitution and a supporter of personal rights and freedoms. But a closer look at his newsletter, which is published under various names such as The Ron Paul Freedom Report and The Ron Paul Survival Report, tells us that these rights and freedoms should be protected only for upper class, white, heterosexual men. Behold:
On terrorism: "[O]ur country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists—and they can be identified by the color of their skin".
On black people: "We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational".
Oh, those crazy barbarians: "The cause of the riots is plain: barbarism. If the barbarians cannot loot sufficiently through legal channels (i.e., the riots being the welfare-state minus the middleman), they resort to illegal ones, to terrorism".
On the plight of white people and non-Christians: "We now know that we are under assault from thugs and revolutionaries who hate Euro-American civilization and everything it stands for: private property, material success for those who earn it, and Christian morality".
On Martin Luther King Day: "our annual Hate Whitey Day".
Suggestions for alternative names for NYC: Welfaria, Zooville, Rapetown, Dirtburg, and Lazyopolis.
On a reporter from a gay magazine: "[He] certainly had an axe to grind, and that's not easy with a limp wrist".
On gay people: "Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."
On gays in the military: "Homosexuals, if admitted, should be put in a special category and not allowed in close physical contact with heterosexuals."
On AIDS: "Am I the only one sick of hearing about the 'rights' of AIDS carriers? ... they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."
More on AIDS: readers of the newsletter were cautioned not to receive blood transfusions because homosexuals are trying to "poison the blood supply".
Please tell me more, Mr. Paul, about who else you'd persecute if you had the power to do so. Tell me more about your obvious homophobia and xenophobia. Tell me more about how women aren't capable of making decisions about their own bodies. Tell me more about how minorities are ruining your life and the life of every other rich white man in America.
Ron Paul wants to purge the nation of gays, immigrants, poor people, non-whites, and non-Christians, yet he keeps talking about RIGHTS and FREEDOM. I suggest he actually READ the Constitution instead of systematically pissing all over it.
On terrorism: "[O]ur country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists—and they can be identified by the color of their skin".
On black people: "We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational".
Oh, those crazy barbarians: "The cause of the riots is plain: barbarism. If the barbarians cannot loot sufficiently through legal channels (i.e., the riots being the welfare-state minus the middleman), they resort to illegal ones, to terrorism".
On the plight of white people and non-Christians: "We now know that we are under assault from thugs and revolutionaries who hate Euro-American civilization and everything it stands for: private property, material success for those who earn it, and Christian morality".
On Martin Luther King Day: "our annual Hate Whitey Day".
Suggestions for alternative names for NYC: Welfaria, Zooville, Rapetown, Dirtburg, and Lazyopolis.
On a reporter from a gay magazine: "[He] certainly had an axe to grind, and that's not easy with a limp wrist".
On gay people: "Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."
On gays in the military: "Homosexuals, if admitted, should be put in a special category and not allowed in close physical contact with heterosexuals."
On AIDS: "Am I the only one sick of hearing about the 'rights' of AIDS carriers? ... they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."
More on AIDS: readers of the newsletter were cautioned not to receive blood transfusions because homosexuals are trying to "poison the blood supply".
Please tell me more, Mr. Paul, about who else you'd persecute if you had the power to do so. Tell me more about your obvious homophobia and xenophobia. Tell me more about how women aren't capable of making decisions about their own bodies. Tell me more about how minorities are ruining your life and the life of every other rich white man in America.
Ron Paul wants to purge the nation of gays, immigrants, poor people, non-whites, and non-Christians, yet he keeps talking about RIGHTS and FREEDOM. I suggest he actually READ the Constitution instead of systematically pissing all over it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)