Sarah Palin, Republican Vice Presidential Candidate

[Deftscythe]

Fox's Megyn Kelly Grills Tucker Bounds On False Tax Claims
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OviYjJWIYbY

I like how when asked to defend McCain's untrue claims about Obama's positions, he keeps saying that Obama can't be taken at his word.

[kuronosan]

I like how he keeps trying to avoid the questions about Obama's policy.

'Well if he's voted like this before then we can expect this behavior in the future if he's elected'.

Yea. Following that logic, asshole, then we can expect McCain and Palin to lie about shit and pretend they didn't.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

So what's the deal with Obama trying to delay a troop pullout of Iraq? If that's true, the only thing that comes to mind is "weird".

[Olo401]

So what's the deal with Obama trying to delay a troop pullout of Iraq? If that's true, the only thing that comes to mind is "weird".

It's not weird how you have no proof to your statement.

[Suited Aces]

It's not weird how you have no proof to your statement.

...and McCain wants to give it to them.

Where was your proof that McCain wants to bail out the failing corporations?

[Kirin]

It's not weird how you have no proof to your statement.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008...wal_129150.htm

While campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

I may be wrong, but aren't there US laws stating that sitting senators cannot act alone in asking a foreign government's leaders to do something without the Presidents consent?

[Demosthenes11]

hay guys, I'm sure Obama is just using reverse psychochology
The man is a saint remember

[Beckwin]

oh look, a New York Post article.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi...ri_column.html

[Demosthenes11]

I'd be more inclined to believe a journalist than a campaign spokesman, sorry
(logic used by you on past pages too)

[quannum]

I'd be more inclined to believe a journalist than a campaign spokesman, sorry
(logic used by you on past pages too)

So palin's teleprompter didn't fail? i'm glad you agree.

[SDSD]

Small caveat. It's the fucking New York Post. Gigantic grain of salt and all that.

[Demosthenes11]

So palin's teleprompter didn't fail? i'm glad you agree.

Are you attempting to "get me" here? Who gives a fuck about her teleprompter, this is a little more of a...pressing issue. If you want I'll say it didn't fail because I don't give a shit about it. So stupid to completely deflect a conversation to something as meaningless and pointless to that

[aurik]

I had to LMAO at this comment...why is this guy still a "Journalist" is beyond me.

"A Colour Code for Iran's Infidels" written by Taheri, a "prominent U.S. neo-conservative" 3, was published May 19, 2006, by Canada's National Post. The story "regarding new legislation in Iran allegedly requiring Jews and other religious minorities to wear distinctive colour badges circulated around the world this weekend before it was exposed as false," Jim Lobe wrote May 22, 2006, for Inter Press Service.

Other Debunked Taheri Claims

Taheri's 1989 book, Nest of Spies, was debunked for citing "nonexistent sources," fabricating "nonexistent substance in cases where the sources existed," and distorting the facts "beyond recognition," wrote Larry Cohler-Esses in The Nation. The book described the rule and fall of the Shah in Iran. 6

In 2005, Taheri claimed that Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, Javad Zarif, had taken part in the 1979 hostage crisis at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. "This allegation is false," San Francisco State University professor Dwight Simpson wrote to the New York Post (which had published a Taheri column making the claim). "On November 4, 1979 the day of the seizure, Javad Zarif was in San Francisco.

[Beckwin]

I'd be more inclined to believe a journalist than a campaign spokesman, sorry
(logic used by you on past pages too)

I rate the Obama campaign more credible than McCain's or the NYP, sadly. The latter two have bad histories with truth.

[Beckwin]

New York Post = troll account

[Demosthenes11]

Bad (read: not credible, biased) sources are quoted all the time on here and treated as the truth.

The one time it doesn't mean something good for your candidate, you bring it up. Incredible.
Doesn't even matter if this shit is true or not. You are a hypocrite

[aurik]

Bad (read: not credible, biased) sources are quoted all the time on here and treated as the truth.

The one time it doesn't mean something good for your candidate, you bring it up. Incredible.
Doesn't even matter if this shit is true or not. You are a hypocrite

TRUTH IS IRRELEVANT.

SINCERELY, REPUBLICAN

[Kuya]

Does anyone know why Obama wants a review issued? It was also my understanding that Bush was pushing for immunity for not only the troops but for contractors, and essentially, in a exaggerated sense making Iraqi sovereignty irrelevant. Also, they still plan to keep US troops there, indefinitely. That is, assuming what i heard is true.

[Beckwin]

Bad (read: not credible, biased) sources are quoted all the time on here and treated as the truth.

The one time it doesn't mean something good for your candidate, you bring it up. Incredible.
Doesn't even matter if this shit is true or not. You are a hypocrite

I'm pretty sure any "sketchy" sources I've posted are either obviously editorials or I mention more mainstream sources also reporting the same core info. Stop boo-hooing because the NYP is more awful and happens to be the only source giving this claim any sort of credibility.

But really though, humor me and find me posting terrible sources. I think the worst I've posted is the Palin book-ban list which I said wasn't very reliable (it was proven to be untrue).

[archibaldcrane]

Bad (read: not credible, biased) sources are quoted all the time on here and treated as the truth.

The one time it doesn't mean something good for your candidate, you bring it up. Incredible.
Doesn't even matter if this shit is true or not. You are a hypocrite

If a source isn't credible, then provide evidence as Aurik did and it's legitimacy will be called into question. Don't just cry and get your vag sandy when some anti-Obama evidence is a fabrication and someone calls it out.