False But Justified

[Kathianne]

First we get the Rather, 'faked but accurate,' now WaPo writer gives 'False, but justified' defense:

http://www.artsandammo.com/2008/10/06/false-but-justified/


Four years ago, mainstream media peddled their bias with Dan Rather’s famous phrase, “fake but accurate.” This year we are treated to its corollary: False but justified.

Sebastian Mallaby couples the following two points in his Washington Post column:


1. The Obama campaign is falsely blaming the financial mess on McCain-style deregulation.

2. It is “mostly justified” that Obama reap the benefit.

It is justified because the author says Obama is “more thoughtful on the economy.” That’s it.

Being more thoughtful does not mean being right, but being right is apparently not as important as being thoughtful. It comforts liberals to envision people thinking hard about difficult questions, even when they come up with the wrong answer. Consequences be damned.

Really, I’m not making this up. Here’s the money paragraph from Mallaby:


The financial turmoil has pushed the Obama campaign into the lead, and this is mostly justified. Barack Obama is more thoughtful on the economy than his opponent, and his bench of advisers is superior. But there’s a troubling side to the Democratic advance. The claim that the financial crisis reflects Bush-McCain deregulation is not only nonsense. It is the sort of nonsense that could matter.

Have no fear; Obama is thinking. His superior advisers who give the wrong answers are better than a cadre of mediocre advisers pushing wise policy.

So blaming deregulation for the financial mess is misguided. But it is dangerous, too, because one of the big challenges for the next president will be to defend markets against the inevitable backlash that follows this crisis.

False, dangerous, misguided . . . and justified. Liberalism in a nutshell.

[midcan5]

How can the eyes of the blind partisans be opened? Can a collapse of middle class do it? Can a collapse of wall street do it? Can a collapse of the banking system do it? Seems not as the tools keep posting speculative nonsense. Here is McCain years ago, he has not changed.

http://www.keatingeconomics.com/?source=sem-pm-google&gclid=CO-bsMD8lJYCFQOIFQodIy6rFA

A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote to continue the same economic policies that are destroying the middle class in America.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j56i15Wdgok

[Yurt]

funny how you ignore CRA and its amendments by billy and you ignore the dems in 2003...saying there is NO problem with fannie when it was republicans sounding the alarm and dems calling the republicans FEAR MONGERS :poke:

hitler would be proud of your propaganda skills midcan

[Kathianne]

How can the eyes of the blind partisans be opened? Can a collapse of middle class do it? Can a collapse of wall street do it? Can a collapse of the banking system do it? Seems not as the tools keep posting speculative nonsense. Here is McCain years ago, he has not changed.

http://www.keatingeconomics.com/?source=sem-pm-google&gclid=CO-bsMD8lJYCFQOIFQodIy6rFA

A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote to continue the same economic policies that are destroying the middle class in America.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j56i15Wdgok

Yes, let's look at the finding from when it was 'investigated':

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-keating-2,0,3810427.story


chicagotribune.com
FROM THE TRIBUNE ARCHIVES
From archives: Senate ethics panel cites Cranston in Keating Five case

Chicago Tribune

Originally published Feb. 28, 1991

WASHINGTON

There is "substantial credible evidence" that Sen. Alan Cranston violated Senate rules by intervening with federal savings and loan regulators for campaign contributor Charles Keating, the Senate ethics committee decided Wednesday.

In the largest group disciplinary action ever taken in the Senate, the committee also publicly scolded four other senators, who along with Cranston have become known as the Keating Five.

The case of Cranston (D-Calif.) will proceed into a final stage that probably will conclude with full Senate action, which could mean expulsion but will more likely be censure or reprimand. No further action will be taken against the four others.

The ruling could have an impact on the conduct of U.S. senators for years to come as they evaluate whether their service on behalf of constituents and campaign contributors oversteps Senate rules. The ethics committee said it hoped the rulings would lead to campaign finance reform.

The four who escaped full Senate review of their cases -- Sens. Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.), Donald Riegle (D-Mich.), John McCain (R-Ariz.) and John Glenn (D- Ohio) -- nevertheless "exercised poor judgment" in intervening on behalf of Keating, a savings and loan owner, the committee said. The committee was particularly critical of Riegle and DeConcini, saying their conduct "gave the appearance of being improper," though they violated no rule....

[Abbey Marie]

If McCain loses, I think we will look back on this campaign as having failed simply because of a lack of effective communication. I can blame McCain a little for that, but primarily, the blame goes to the MSM for being in the tank for Obama from the beginning.

We on this board are much more informed than the average guy, and we read more independent sources. I think we forget that many people are only hearing what their local rag and the networks are telling them. They are not hearing the scary truths about Obama, while being fed a steady diet of Obama worship.

The only solace I take from this is that I still believe most Americans would abhor the things that Obama stands for, and his racist and traitorous associaties. They just don't really know the truth. Unfortunately, if he is elected, it will be too late to matter for at least 4 years.

[midcan5]

Yes, let's look at the finding from when it was 'investigated':

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-keating-2,0,3810427.story

I'm not defending their poor judgment you are, two three or even five wrongs don't make a right. McCain through his surrogate pitbull started to throw stones, he got them thrown back. His judgment in this as with the economy, and the bail out suspend, and the choice of Ms Dumber, just point to and prove his incompetence. Has nothing to do with MSM which has treated him fairly.

[darin]

Midcan - Jim's asked you once already to stop w/ the bolded comments - just use a signature. If you need help setting that up, shoot me a PM.

[Kathianne]

I'm not defending their poor judgment you are, two three or even five wrongs don't make a right. McCain through his surrogate pitbull started to throw stones, he got them thrown back. His judgment in this as with the economy, and the bail out suspend, and the choice of Ms Dumber, just point to and prove his incompetence. Has nothing to do with MSM which has treated him fairly.

McCain was exonerated. In spite of that, he apologized profusely and often for his misjudgements. He also became a leader on banking. He was among the first, if not the first, to warn of Fannie & Freddie.

On the other hand, we have the 'only a neighbor' relationship with Obama/Ayers. Whoops, a couple of committees. Whoops praising Ayers book in the Chicago Tribune review, the philosophy of said book is radicalizing young children through the schools. Oh yea, those committees were all about schools.

Then we have the Obama sitting in a churce for over 20 years, a church that he credits with making him Christian. A sermon by the pastor of the church inspires the title of hi second pseudo autobiography before the age of 45, hubris anyone. Sorry I digress. That church, where he married his wife and brought his daughters was a locale of anti-american, white hate.

Notice a pattern here?

[Yurt]

I'm not defending their poor judgment you are, two three or even five wrongs don't make a right. McCain through his surrogate pitbull started to throw stones, he got them thrown back. His judgment in this as with the economy, and the bail out suspend, and the choice of Ms Dumber, just point to and prove his incompetence. Has nothing to do with MSM which has treated him fairly.

so either mccain is right to tell the truth about obama or obama is wrong for throwing stones like mccain...as two, three or even five wrongs don't make a right....my guess, you will say obama is justified in throwing stones because its the truth, but you would of course be wrong as you just said that obama threw the stone BACK at mccain...so your boy is no better than mccain....according to you