"jo4hn" wrote:
> If anyone has a good source for clear, concise information from
> either party (did I say that?) please communicate same.
Since what is put on the web doesn't have to be vetted and confirmed
by at least two independant sources, I'm very reluctant to believe any
of it without further investigation
IMHO, with the litney of major screw ups that have been dropped on our
collective plates over the last 8 years, if Obama can convince us that
he should be elected, by at least 5-10 points, he doesn't deserve to
be president.
We desperately need a leader, not a political hack.
Lew
On Sep 9, 11:42=A0pm, Dan Coby <[email protected]> wrote:
> "jo4hn" wrote:
> > If anyone has a good source for clear, concise information from
> > either party (did I say that?) please communicate same.
>
> One of the better sites for punching holes in inflated claims from
> both parties is FactCheck.org: =A0 =A0http://www.factcheck.org/
But even it doesn't explain why Palin stopped state funding of her
favorite bridge (these days, anyway), and didn't return the Federal
funding she had already gotten for that bridge. She's against
earmarks...yea, sure.
Charlie Self wrote:
> On Sep 9, 11:42 pm, Dan Coby <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "jo4hn" wrote:
>>> If anyone has a good source for clear, concise information from
>>> either party (did I say that?) please communicate same.
>> One of the better sites for punching holes in inflated claims from
>> both parties is FactCheck.org: http://www.factcheck.org/
>
> But even it doesn't explain why Palin stopped state funding of her
> favorite bridge (these days, anyway), and didn't return the Federal
> funding she had already gotten for that bridge. She's against
> earmarks...yea, sure.
For some commentary on that subject see the article entitled "GOP
Convention Spin, Part II" under the section called "A Bridge Too Far".
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html