Santosh Helekar wrote: > But it is important to allow people in a democracy and a free society to > express their opinions freely and fearlessly against those in power, and > those who are entrusted with duty and responsibility towards the public. > Those who live in autocratic countries like China and Saudi Arabia, or > still have a pre-1961 Salazar mindset do not understand this. > > Here are links to claims as to why Barack Obama is a liar: > http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/02/obama-is-a-liar/ > http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/20/obamas-gun-lies/
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:40:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Mervyn Lobo <[email protected]> For those of you who are not aware of it, The Washington Times is a newspaper for the propaganda of the extreme right wing. Mario responds: This scurrilous attempt to demonize The Washington Times also shows a significant lack of understanding of the US by a Canadian resident, and of the difference between news reporting and editorial opinion. As the only voice of reason, truth and peace on Goanet, it is incumbent upon me to correct such poppycock. In the US media, within each newspaper there is a dileanation between straight news reporting, which is supposed to factually report the news, and editorial opinion, which can reflect the personal opinions of the editorial board. All American newspapers must report news fairly or lose credibility with readers. Their editorial opinions can be whatever they please. Most Americans understand this, but apparently some foreigners, like the poster, do not. Thus, The Washington Times is a standard newspaper, no more biased in favor of political right wing propaganda than The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Chicago Tribune, and numerous major newspapers across the US as well as weekly news magazines like Newsweek and Time Magazine are biased in favor of political left wing propaganda. The pertinent question in this thread, however, is why is a poster trying to blatantly demonize the messenger instead of addressing the message? Did he really think no one would notice? We see that no attempt has been made to address the facts in the news items under reference, just an unsubstantiated attack on the newspaper. Unfortunately, the facts at issue can also be confirmed from other credible sources: For example, here is one assertion from: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/02/obama-is-a-liar/ "Despite all the details Mrs. Stanek provided in her testimony, Mr. Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act in the Illinois legislature in 2002 - a bill that would give legal protection and medical assistance to a baby born from a botched abortion. Mr. Obama stated that he feared the bill could undermine Roe v. Wade. When a similar bill was put to Congress, other lawmakers had better sense and bigger hearts: The Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed the Senate with a vote of 98-0. It was signed into law by President Bush on Aug. 5, 2002. Infants born alive are now recognized as legal persons with full rights." Here is what Jill Stanek said on the issue, in her own words, in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYRpIf2F9NA Here is another documented assertion from: http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/20/obamas-gun-lies/ "It is completely untrue that 90 percent of guns recovered in Mexico are from America. The Mexican government separates guns it confiscates that were made in the United States and sends them here to be traced. U.S. weapons are easy to identify because of clear markings. "Of the ones sent here to be traced, 90 percent turn out to be from America, but most guns recovered in Mexico are not sent here so are not included in the count. Fox News reported that 17 percent is a more accurate number." Here is what Factcheck.org had to say on the issue: http://www.factcheck.org/politics/counting_mexicos_guns.html Other well known fibs by President Obama: a) That the surge in Iraq was not working in 2008. In fact, the surge was working and every honest investigator confirmed this. b) That he would post a new bill on the internet for five days before signing it. In fact, the biggest spending bill in US history was signed after no one in the public had read it and most Congressmen, Senators or the President had not read it either. They just did not have the time, because the President and the Democrats who control the Legislature rushed it through. c) That he would go through spending bills line by line to cut out wasteful federal spending. In fact, he did not even read the huge spending bills he has signed so far. d) That he opposes earmarks in a federal budget. In fact, the new Federal Budget Bill contained some 8,500 earmarks. e) That he did not genuflect before King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia as per his spokesman. In fact, the video clip of the incident showed Obama not only bowing deeply before the King, his head reaching as low as the much shorter King's chest, but also bending his knee at the same time. On the other hand, Obama only bowed slightly before Queen Elizabeth who is much shorter than the King. f) That he did not know what Rev. Jeremiah Wright was saying in his sermons after 20 years as a member of his church where the sermons were taped and sold on DVDs. In fact, the Reverend said that Obama knew exactly what was going on at the church but was a politician who would say anything to get elected. g) That what domestic terrorists, Bill Ayers, and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, had done was 40 years ago when he was eight years old. In fact, Bill Ayers confirmed in interviews as recently as 2001 that he was only sorry he had not done a lot more domestic terrorism damage 40 years ago. Obama started his political career at a fundraiser in Ayer's home and they had a close working relationship making speeches together and serving on organization boards together, and exchanging political favors thereafter. h) That he had no relationship with the community agitators at ACORN. In fact, Obama was once an attorney for ACORN and had promised to include them in policy discussions if he was elected President.
