Reformed Chicks Blabbing

Reformed Chicks Blabbing


Obama isn’t waiting until after he’s elected to redefine “wealthy”

posted by Susan Johnson

Obama lowered it to $200,000 in his campaign ad:Then Biden lowered it to $150,000 in this interview:I wonder if he’ll lower it to Clinton’s definition of wealth:

Back in 1992, Bill Clinton also campaigned for a “surcharge” on millionaires. Cut to February 1993. Here is the lead sentence in the Reuters story about his first big economic speech after winning election: “U.S. President Bill Clinton’s plan to seek higher taxes from everybody making more than $30,000 a year means even George Bush underestimated how far Clinton would take tax hikes if elected.” His tax proposal ended up slapping his “millionaire surcharge” on anyone who earned more than $250,000.

If this is a campaign promise that is set in stone and isn’t going to change, then you would think they’d remember the amount. You could understand Biden flubbing it (that seems to be his job), but in their campaign commercial??? Evidently it’s a pretty fluid number.BTW, Obama is knowingly misleading the public (in other words lying) when he says that those making under $250,000…er…$200,000 won’t pay a penny more in taxes because he knows that when Bush tax cuts sunset in 2010, we’ll all be paying higher taxes since we’ll be paying at the higher 2000 rate. You can calculate your rate here, compare it with what you’re paying today. Geraghty ran the numbers for a couple making $60,000 filing jointly, they’ll end up paying close to $3,000 more. We’re not rich but we’ll be losing a couple thousand dollars in 2010. So much for only 5% paying higher taxes.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(25)
post a comment
Moonshadow

posted October 28, 2008 at 6:20 pm


I prefer Obama’s position regarding AMT to McCain’s.



report abuse
 

yelladawgNC

posted October 28, 2008 at 6:24 pm


Bloviate away, Michele. Nobody’s listening. By now you and the rest of the Republicans have slung so much mud and expended so much hot air you’ve practically created your own planet of primordial ooze from which may spring a monstrous new life form, Congenitalis Prevaricatus Republicanis.
Unless I’m mistaken, the confusion here arises simply from the fact that the $200,000 applies to individual income and the $250,000 to married couples. But really, who cares about the facts? Certainly not you, certainly not MzEllen, certainly not McPain or Failin’.



report abuse
 

MzEllen

posted October 28, 2008 at 6:36 pm


Yellwdawg, while I recognize that you and I have different opinions on the right direction for our country, I have never EVER said that you are not interested in truth.



report abuse
 

DA

posted October 28, 2008 at 7:01 pm


Actually, you’re either knowingly misleading your readers (lying) or simply not paying attention to his plan. He intends to allow the Bush cuts for the wealthy expire while extending (and adding to) those same cuts for the middle class. Now there seems to be some discrepancy about where exactly he’s drawing that line, and call him on that, see what’s really going on here. That’s an honest thing to examine (as long as you actually look into instead of just assuming something).
But every nonpartisan look at both candidates’ tax plans that I’ve come across so far has indicated that those making $60k, to use your example, will pay less than currently under *both* candidates, with the savings being more under Obama’s plan than McCain’s (though that reverses as you go higher, so at $120k, you’re still paying less under either plan than currently, but with higher savings under McCain).
Now, those nonpartisan studies also indicate that *neither* candidate can fully explain how they’ll manage to do the things they promise if their plans do go through (with the bigger gap lying between McCain’s program promises and cuts promises), but that’s really an issue that requires much more than this simple post.



report abuse
 

James

posted October 28, 2008 at 8:07 pm


Once again, rank dishonesty blares at the top of this blog.
“You could understand Biden flubbing it (that seems to be his job), but in their campaign commercial?”
Obama has indicated again and again that the tax increase will apply to those making over $250,000 per year. People making under $200,000 will see a tax cut. Now here’s the part that might blow your mind: People making between $200,000 to $250,000 will see NO CHANGE. Hence the ad.
As far as Biden’s comment, he either misspoke and meant to say $250k, or he’s just referring to Obama proposal of a $500-per-worker tax credit for people who earn less than $150,000. Either way, their plan hasn’t changed, but your distortions sure have.
The percentage of households earning $250,000 or more is 1.9% (from the 2007 Census Bureau data). Why you people are so adamant on defending the richest slice of the nation while ignoring that the rest of us will actually benefit is just beyond me.
You are the one “knowingly misleading the public (in other words lying)”. Stop the deliberate misinformation, or at least stop pretending that you’re fighting clean.
P.S. I love your little Clinton jab, which in reality ended up just like Obama’s — an increase “on anyone who earned more than $250,000.” But I know Clinton’s presidency was marred by socialism and a collapsed economy, right?



report abuse
 

rrichardson

posted October 28, 2008 at 8:35 pm


More bad news today:
Obama Leads in Florida, Ohio, Must-Win Battlegrounds for McCain
By Catherine Dodge
Oct. 29 (Bloomberg) — Barack Obama leads in Florida and Ohio, states Republican John McCain must win to capture the presidency, as voters prefer the Democratic presidential nominee’s personal traits and approach on the economy and health care.
Obama, an Illinois senator, tops Arizona Senator McCain by 50 percent to 43 percent among likely voters in Florida, a Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll shows. He leads 49 percent to 40 percent in Ohio, as voters in the two states overwhelmingly rate domestic concerns as more important than national security.
Voters choose Obama, 47, as the candidate best able to handle the financial crisis and health care. And by an almost 2- to-1 margin, they say the Democrat has “the better temperament and personality to be president.”
“Domestic issues are the outstanding issues of the day, and Obama has been owning those,” says Susan Pinkus, the Los Angeles Times polling director. What is more, “voters are more comfortable with him” after his three debate performances.
Florida voters by more than 2-to-1 say a candidate’s views on domestic issues such as health care and the economy are more important than positions on the war in Iraq and terrorism; voters in Ohio say the same by a 3-to-1 margin.
Crucial States
No Republican has won the White House without capturing Ohio, and Florida helped George W. Bush obtain two terms in the White House. The current U.S. electoral map, polls show, indicates it would be almost impossible for McCain, 72, to win without carrying those two states.
In 2004, Bush won 286 Electoral College votes, including Ohio’s 20 and Florida’s 27. It takes 270 to win and if Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic nominee, had won either of those states, he would have defeated the incumbent president.
Less than a week before the Nov. 4 election, Obama is running ahead in all the states that Kerry won, and is highly competitive in more than half a dozen states where Bush prevailed.
There’s also a gender gap in the Democrat’s favor. Among women voters in Florida, Obama leads 51 percent to 41 percent; in Ohio, his lead is 54 percent to 38 percent. Obama has a small lead among men in Florida, while McCain is slightly ahead with male voters in Ohio.
Temperament
In Florida, 58 percent of voters say Obama has a better temperament to be president, compared with 30 percent for McCain. In Ohio, Obama beats McCain on that question 57 percent to 29 percent.
“I find Obama to be pretty calm under any circumstance,” says poll respondent Donna Orcutt, 63, of Toledo, Ohio. “In the debates, some of the zingers he got he handled pretty good. If the object was to see if they could make him lose his temper, that didn’t happen.”
Orcutt, a Democrat who is retired and used to work for a house-cleaning company and as a secretary, says Obama has a better understanding of the economy because he didn’t grow up in a privileged environment. McCain, she says, “is a very nice man,” though he has never had to worry “about where the next paycheck is coming from.”
On the question of which candidate they trust to make the right decision about the economy, voters in Florida pick Obama over McCain by a 9-point margin, and in Ohio, the Democrat leads by 12 points.
Health Care
Obama does even better on the question of which candidate would better handle health care. In Florida, he is preferred by 52 percent of voters, compared with 34 percent for McCain; in Ohio, 54 percent pick Obama and 30 percent choose the Republican.
The Democrat also is ahead with white working-class voters, who overwhelmingly favored his opponent for the Democratic nomination, Senator Hillary Clinton of New York. Obama gets the support of 52 percent of these voters in Ohio, compared with 38 percent for McCain; in Florida, this group is almost evenly split, with a slight edge for Obama.
Even though Bush used victories in Ohio and Florida to build his winning coalition, more than seven in 10 voters in both states now disapprove of his job performance; more than eight in 10 say the country is on the wrong track.
Seventy percent of voters in Florida and 62 percent in Ohio say the recent troubles in the economy have hurt their family’s financial situation.
Change Agent
Ohio and Florida voters also say the ability to bring change to Washington — a central theme of Obama’s campaign — is more important than having the most experience, which is one of McCain’s selling points.
“I truly see Obama as someone who will come in with a less political and more intelligent problem-solving approach to really trying to address the critical problems,” says poll respondent Laurie Kadoch, 60, a Miami Democrat, who teaches at Florida International University College of Law.
Bush’s record is hurting McCain in Ohio, where more than half of voters say the Republican will continue the current administration’s policies. Voters also are split on that question in Florida.
As in previous polls, the bright spots for McCain are his ability to successfully handle the war in Iraq and protect the country from terrorism. The Arizona senator leads Obama in those categories in both states, the poll shows.
“He does have a whole lot more experience than Obama does,” said Republican poll respondent Maria Lyle, 25, a stay- at-home mother from Jackson Center, Ohio. “His ideas line up more with how I feel. With the terrorism issue, I feel we do need to have our troops over there.”
Palin Pick
McCain’s choice of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate appears to be a drag on the ticket in both states. Less than half of voters in Florida and Ohio view her as qualified to be president. By comparison, more than seven in 10 voters in both states say Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden, a Delaware senator, is qualified to be president.
The survey of 809 registered voters in Florida — including 639 likely voters — and of 816 registered voters in Ohio — including 644 likely voters — was conducted Oct. 25-27. The margin of sampling error in both states is plus or minus 3 percentage points among registered voters, and of plus or minus 4 points among likely voters.



report abuse
 

Gillian

posted October 28, 2008 at 9:17 pm


“More bad news today.”
Bad news for neocons, racists, the top 2% wealthiest people in the USA, and those who pretend to follow the teachings of Christ, sure.



report abuse
 

MzEllen

posted October 28, 2008 at 9:32 pm


Hey, Gillian, have you sold all you have and given it to the poor?



report abuse
 

yelladawgNC

posted October 28, 2008 at 11:45 pm


I repeat: MzEllen, why do you insist on spreading vicious lies about Obama? How can you purport to care so much about unborn fetuses and so very little about truth?
Here are the facts about the so-called “Born Alive” bill in Illinois:
* At the time Barack voted against a bill containing language designed to protect infants who were “born alive,” such protection was already on the books as Illinois state law.[1]
* The accusations against Barack are so reckless that not even the Republican state senator who sponsored the bill will support them. In fact, he freely admits that “None of those who voted against SB-1082 favored infanticide.”[2]
* The bill was opposed by many legislators and groups like the Illinois Medical Society because of the unintended impact it would have had on other laws and legal precedents in Illinois.[3]
* Barack is on the record[3] saying that he would have supported a similar bill that came up in Congress — but that didn’t pose a threat to a woman’s right to choose the way the Illinois bill did.[4]
1. FACT
Illinois Law Stated That A Doctor Must Preserve The Life And Health Of A Fetus If In The Course Of An Abortion, There Is Reasonable Likelihood Of Sustained Survival. The Illinois Compiled Statutes stated that any physician who intentionally performs an abortion when, in his medical judgment based on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support, shall utilize that method of abortion which, of those he knows to be available, is in his medical judgment most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus. No abortion shall be performed or induced when the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion. Subsequent to the abortion, if a child is born alive, the physician required to be in attendance shall exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion. Violation of these statutes constituted a Class 3 felony. [Illinois Compiled Statutes, 720 ILCS 510/6]
2. FACT
Republican Bill Sponsor Said “None Of Those Who Voted Against SB-1082 Favored Infanticide.” Rick Winkel, a Republican former state senator who sponsored the “Born Alive” bill, wrote in a Letter to the Editor, “None of those who voted against SB-1082 favored infanticide.” [Chicago Tribune, Winkel LTE, 9/5/08]
3. FACT
The Illinois State Medical Society Opposed The Bill Because It Interfered With The Physician-Patient Relationship And Greatly Expanded Civil Liability For Physicians. “The Illinois State Medical Society, which also fought the legislation and was cited by Mr. Obama on Saturday in his defense of his position, said in a statement that it opposed the package of bills, first introduced in 2001, “because they interfered negatively with the physician-patient relationship, attempted to dictate the practice of medicine for neonatal care and greatly expanded civil liability for physicians.” [New York Times, 8/19/08] Obama Said He Would Have Supported Federal Born-Alive Legislation. The Chicago Tribune reported, “Obama said that had he been in the US Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not. Both measures required that if a fetus survived an abortion procedure, it must be considered a person. Backers argued it was necessary to protect a fetus if it showed signs of life after being separated from its mother…the difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade.” [Chicago Tribune, 10/4/04]
4. FACT
The 2003 Bill Had The Same Wording As The Federal Measure But Would “Have Had A Different Effect At The State Level…By Undermining Illinois’ Legal Precedents On Abortion.” The Chicago Tribune reported, “Supporters of abortion rights say Obama was right to oppose the 2003 bill, even though it had the same wording as the federal measure. The wording could have had a different effect at the state level, they say, by undermining Illinois’ legal precedents on abortion. Once more, the key is the 1975 Illinois abortion law, which contains language that’s similar but not identical to the later bill. The 2003 bill could have affected the way courts interpret the 1975 law, which Planned Parenthood and the Illinois State Medical Society contended could have far-reaching implications.” [Chicago Tribune, 8/20/08]
Despite having this evidence pointed out to you repeatedly on this blog, MzEllen, you have continued to assert that because Obama voted as he did he doesn’t care about saving babies who survive botched abortions, as if he is some kind of heartless monster who is only pretending to care about “the least of these.” It’s untrue, you know it’s untrue, and yet you go right on saying it. If you cared anything for the truth, you would have at least the good grace to stop insisting on what you KNOW to be false.
If you have never accused me of caring nothing for the truth, perhaps that’s because I’ve given you no reason to do so, not because you are a morally superior person.
And by the way: the Republicans said Social Security was a socialist plot. They also said Medicare was a Socialist plot. You guys really need to write some new lines.



report abuse
 

ds0490

posted October 29, 2008 at 12:54 am


The Republicans spread lies because after making shipwreck of this nation over the past 14 years (since the Republican Revolution of 1994) they have NOTHING left but to tear down their opponents. Even McGinty has trouble saying anything good about McCain other than the fact that he is not Obama.
Socialism, Marxism, and other bogie-men of the right are all that the GOP can bring to the fore in this campaign. They destroyed Max Cleland’s and John Kerry’s military record, so they cannot honestly say that military records mean anything. The economy is terrible, and the 95% of Americans who know this would laugh McCain out of the race if he tried to run on the GOP “success” with the economy. Afghanistan, and if recent news reports are correct, Iran, are worsening.
Face it…with a track record like that it’s no wonder they are throwing so much mud at Obama. It takes a lot to make a non-Republican candidate look worse than a Republican these days.



report abuse
 

Minnie

posted October 29, 2008 at 1:05 am


More Republican lectures about economics. LOL!
Again– the GOP is a joke when it comes to fiscal conservatism, taxes, economics, and when they tell people that Obama will make them poor, it’s laughable.
Eight years of Republican rule have brought housing, financial and credit crises to this country unlike anything we’ve ever seen, though mercifully, things seem to have bottomed out for now, with the markets beginning the long, slow process of correcting. Republicans squandered any credibility they might have had on economics when Lehman Bros. failed, and now their policies are lying dead on the sidewalk outside of the New York Stock Exchange.
If the worst that the Republicans can come up with is “Tax and spend liberal! Socialist! Booga booga booga!”, then Obama’s in pretty good shape in the last week of the election.



report abuse
 

MzEllen

posted October 29, 2008 at 1:38 am


Yelladawg, except that the existing law didn’t cover certain circumstances – we know that because then the fact that babies were dying in laundry rooms was made known, the attorney general said that (because of the “pre-viability” of the infant), no law was being broken. The irony is that the viability was being determined by the doctor who was trying to kill the child in the first place.
The “born-alive act” would have required that a different doctor agree that the child could not survive. Don’t forget that “treatment” also includes palliative treatment.
Obama also does not make any distinction between any particular stage in the pregnancy. A child could be born at 38 weeks and still be left to die (although “partial birth abortion” is banned in Illinois).
As long as you all understand that what you are supporting is the denial of “personhood” to a child who is born alive (no matter what stage of development).
As long as you understand that babies were dying in dirty utility rooms, the attorney general said that no laws were being broken (that means, Yelladawg, that your claim that an existing law covered this situation is the lie), and Obama voted against even letting a bill that changed that go the floor of the Senate.
These things are not lies. You may not like those facts, but they are not lies. You may disagree, but they still are not lies.
I believe that personhood begins before birth…for you all, if it doesn’t start at birth, when does it start?
My pregnancy was ended at a stage before the baby’s sucking reflex had kicked in. Would that have made him a “person”?
Or does the infant’s “personhood” depend on whether or not he or she is wanted?



report abuse
 

MzEllen

posted October 29, 2008 at 1:48 am


It’s untrue, you know it’s untrue, and yet you go right on saying it. If you cared anything for the truth, you would have at least the good grace to stop insisting on what you KNOW to be false.
No…actually, I don’t know it’s untrue.
We have a difference of opinion. That happens in the abortion debate. It’s not a lie, it’s a belief.
Your continued accusation is wearying, would it be so bad to accord “personhood” to a infant born alive, no matter what the circumstances?
Never mind. I know your answer.



report abuse
 

Gillian

posted October 29, 2008 at 2:20 am


Ha, MzEllen, you assume I adhere to a religion because I point out your hypocrisy? Your intellectual dishonesty is showing. I can’t tell whether that was a straw man, slippery slope, tu quoque, or just total nonsense. Pick your fallacy.
Or let’s just propose a new one, tax-flavored:
The McCain/Palin Fallacy:
1. Person A supports a moderate position (e.g. increased taxation).
2. Person B distorts and twists the position to its most extreme, ridiculous, and patently unrealistic logical end (e.g. communism, fascism, socialism).
3. Therefore, Person A and Person A’s position should be dismissed (as well as feared and hated).
Example: Obama proposes a Clintonian 3% tax increase on the richest 2% of the country. Tax money often goes toward social programs. Social programs are a facet of Communism. Therefore, Obama is a communist.
Then there’s your tu quoque implication that a cause or idea is negated based on the actions of its advocates. (This, assuming that I haven’t in fact devoted time and money to multiple charities.) I love it. It’s reminiscent of those who say that we shouldn’t reduce our carbon footprint because Al Gore wastes energy at home. Or that because a humane vegetarian sometimes eats fish, that he or she should abandon the entire cause and take up a diet of foie gras and chimpanzee brain. On and on.
(Who am I kidding? I’m going up against some of the most common sleaze tactics in the right wing playbook. Congrats for condensing about four of them into one sentence.)



report abuse
 

Gillian

posted October 29, 2008 at 2:45 am


Just wanted to add that I’ve run a small eBay business since 1998. We make less than $90,000 a year and I feel extremely fortunate. Heck, even if Obama WERE going to include us in his 3% tax bracket increase, we would still live extremely comfortable lives. I have no problem contributing a little more to my country’s infrastructure, healthcare, and education. But the fact is, we will be seeing a CUT under Obama. I have absolutely no sympathy for those crying Socialism, particularly those making $250,000 per year. I just can’t believe people are basing their entire arguments on the pampering of America’s wealthiest.



report abuse
 

American

posted October 29, 2008 at 4:54 am


I see you all have not lost your fight.
Good! Because we have a lot to do. We (the American people) are going to have to take back control of our elected government and set it on the right path of service to us and the greater good of the world. Obama and the Democrats are our best hope of doing that. Tell your family, friends, and everyone you know to support them as best they can. Because the Neocon machine of voter fraud, voter cheating, voter buying, and voter manipulation is already hard at work to cheat us again.
Beginning back in 2000, and before 9/11, it was mostly Republican governors, Republican legislatures, and county-elected Republican officials who conspired with the corrupt Bush administration to raise college and university tuitions by the fastest and highest rate in American history. Some state tuitions went up by as much as a whopping 30% in one year. The reason the Bush administration did this was to force struggling working class kids into the military to pay for the sudden jump in price.
Bush ideology had plans to get us into all these immoral, foolish, and unnecessary wars from the start so that they could use them to seize and keep power. But, for their plan to work, they needed even more volunteer soldiers whose blood they could spill. (Remember Bush’s “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED” theatrics.) The exploitation and lost lives of these finest Americans is despicable, disgusting, and criminal. And it makes me SICK, and ANGRY.
We will have to vote for Obama in overwhelming numbers to overcome the Bush-McCain fraud machine. Vote early if you can. Then help your fellow Americans cast their votes now and on through election day. Vote for Obama as though your life (and the lives of your loved ones) depends on it. Because truly, it does: we will not survive 4 more years of the “Let Them Eat Cake” leadership of Bush, McCain, and their corrupt Republican allies.
Just look at the mess we have already. We can fix it with your vote. And REMEMBER, no matter which of us may stumble, the rest of us must continue to surge forward for Obama and the Democrats, and for ourselves most of all. Our children and the world are counting on us.
It’s in our hands now. And I know we will get it done.
God bless all of you.



report abuse
 

MzEllen

posted October 29, 2008 at 6:50 am


And ACORN will “help”.
I think there is enough fraud going on on both sides that we all should be concerned about fraud.



report abuse
 

Gillian

posted October 29, 2008 at 8:51 am


MzEllen, you are knowingly LYING about Acorn. Again and again this has been debunked. ACORN’S volunteers and temp employees were pressured to collect extra registrations in a legitimate push, so they lazily filled out a bunch of fake names to get paychecks. ACORN *themselves* flagged the registrations (why in the world would they do this if the fraud was deliberate?). Not to mention that all of these phony people (Mickey Mouse, Darth Vader) would have had to show up at the polls with IDs to vote. The only fraud is you for perpetuating this myth. How dare you continue to pretend that ACORN sought to rig votes. Shame on you.
On the other hand, you want PROOF that Republicans are paid by the RNC to rig elections?
Google Allen Raymond. Search his name on Youtube. Listen to his confessions.
Try to spin this guy. Tell me with a straight face that Democrats are “equally” at fault. This is a dead serious issue and McCain and the RNC are shamelessly behind it. The truth is painfully obvious for any curious mind. The GOP uses caging, racial intimidation, suppression, and ANYTHING else necessary to keep minorities and new voters out of the booths.
There is no excuse. You people function at the lowest possible level every single day. Show me a left wing blog that posts deliberate LIES and DISTORTIONS every single day? How is your behavior an appropriate response to perceived bias? You are all doing this at the cost of your souls.
———
Allen Raymond: “There’s rigging elections with illegal tactics, (e.g. the New Hampshire phone-jamming effort that I can speak to), and there’s the rigging by use of responsive cord messages that are effective in getting voters to even vote contrary to their self-interest.
“Voter suppression historically tends to be a GOP objective, as Democrats have long out-registered Republicans (with exception). This year’s voter registration clearly favors the Democratic ticket (see Virginia); therefore, voter suppression tends to be more systematic in the GOP (e.g. caging) because polarization and low turnout historically favors GOP candidates.
“In this instance in New Jersey, off-duty law enforcement were assigned to stand at urban polling places wearing black arm bands with NBSTF inscribed, with sidearms on display. That’s enough to scare anybody, much less a community already rightly suspicious of law enforcement.



report abuse
 

anonymous reincarnate

posted October 29, 2008 at 11:44 am


regarding acorn, we’re still waiting for those numbers, mzellen…
[crickets chirping]
do you need for me to repeat the questions again? how many proven cases are there of someone voting more than once, or a dead person voting, or any other illegal vote as a result of voter registration fraud? like i said before, it’s one thing to register “mickey mouse” but it’s another for “mickey mouse” to actually show up at the polls and cast a vote. is it worth suppressing the votes of thousands to stop a few illegal votes?



report abuse
 

yelladawgNC

posted October 29, 2008 at 1:02 pm


No, MzEllen, it is untrue that there is “enough fraud on both sides.” This is a gambit you frequently use because it makes you appear objective and fair, while it conceals an ugly truth you’d rather not acknowledge. The Republicans have a long, sordid record of suppressing the vote, intimidating voters, interfering with voters, misleading voters, attempting to purge thousands of legitimate voters from the election rolls, registering people as Republicans without their knowledge or consent, and on and on and on.
Democrats may have problems with registration fraud, as in the case of ACORN, who hired otherwise unemployable people to register voters who then put down names like “Mickey Mouse” on the forms because they were paid per completed registration. And ACORN, by the way, was the first to alert the Board of Elections to these problems–a fact that Republicans conveniently omit when mud-slinging. Also omitted is the fact that to date, no one has actually been apprehended trying to impersonate Mickey Mouse or any of the other nonexistent or dead people whose names appeared on fraudulent registrations.
Registration fraud is a far cry from actually interfering with the election in the many serious ways that the Republicans have done and are doing again (big surprise!) this year. Your party is expert at dirty tricks. If you don’t believe me, read HOW TO RIG AN ELECTION by a former Republican operative.



report abuse
 

Minnie

posted October 29, 2008 at 1:40 pm


For all the scare-mongering about ACORN, there are still Republicans out there perpetuating REAL voter fraud and REAL voter suppression and intimidation tactics. Just look at all the whining from the GOP when Gov. Crist in Florida extended early voting hours because of the long lines in his state. The Republicans were acting as if longer voting hours was a tragedy, and some even said he’d blown the state for McCain.
Then there’s this little gem being passed around by Republican activists in Virginia telling Democrats to vote on Nov. 5th, the day after the election is over:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/28/politics/horserace/entry4554416.shtml



report abuse
 

MzEllen

posted October 29, 2008 at 3:23 pm


I just can’t believe people are basing their entire arguments on the pampering of America’s wealthiest.
Gillian, have you given all that you own to the poor? No? Does that make you “pampered” or merely a hypocrite?
I have no problem contributing a little more to my country’s infrastructure, healthcare, and education.
Very seldom do we hear about people not wanting to pay for the infrastructure. Socialized healthcare? hmmm…not so much.
Education? I think that our students would be better served by doing away with the Dept of Ed, cut out the money that goes to the feds (who take a big chunk of it for administration and then offer it back to the states that gave it in the first place with lots and lots of strings attached. By cutting out the feds, the state and local boards would have much more money to work with, the local boards of education would have control of the curriculum and that which is not in the Constitution would be in the control of the states – where it belongs.
Gillian, why do you trust Obama to keep the financial promise about taxes, when he as already proven that when it’s convenient, he’ll break financial promises (campaign finance)?



report abuse
 

anonymous reincarnate

posted October 29, 2008 at 7:05 pm


mzellen, why do you trust mccain will keep his financial promises about taxes, when he has already proven that when it’s convenient, he’ll break financial promises (campaign finance)?
bush cut taxes too deeply and broadly and the debt exploded. mccain promises the same cuts and more and promises to balance the budget? analysts have already showed that mccain’s plans will increase the deficit and the national debt considerably more than obama’s and will continue to hurt the middle class to the benefit of the upper 2%.



report abuse
 

MzEllen

posted October 29, 2008 at 8:52 pm


AR – two words: voting record.



report abuse
 

yelladawgNC

posted October 30, 2008 at 1:14 am


MzEllen: Two words: voting record. “I voted with the President 90 percent of the time.” –John McCain



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Reformed Chicks Babbling. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Inspiration Report Happy Reading!!!

posted 3:05:14pm Aug. 27, 2012 | read full post »

One Final Word
My dear friend Michele slipped into eternity on Wednesday, February 1.   She was a remarkable woman who left a legacy of faith, determination, and love. For three years she courageously battled the ovarian cancer that eventually robbed her of her life.  A few days before she died, one of her docto

posted 8:43:41pm Feb. 10, 2012 | read full post »

The rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated
My husband told me that there are rumors that I've died. I'm happy to report that I'm still very much alive. My cancer has gone to stage four but we are controlling it with chemo, the cancer numbers are currently in the normal range. I've stopped blogging to concentrate on my daughters and writing a

posted 7:07:55pm Aug. 23, 2010 | read full post »

An update and a prayer request
Several people have asked about Michele's condition, and have promised to pray for her. On her behalf, I thank you for that. I spoke with her a little while ago, and she asked that I come here and tell you what's going on, and to ask you to pray for her. She isn't able to post here herself right

posted 4:55:36pm Apr. 06, 2010 | read full post »

Rest in peace, Internet Monk.
A man known in the cyber world as The Internet Monk, has died. Michael Spencer lost his battle with cancer tonight. My prayers go out for his family and for all those who loved and will miss him. :(

posted 11:52:00pm Apr. 05, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.