Reformed Chicks Blabbing

Reformed Chicks Blabbing


Lefties are finally getting it…

posted by Susan Johnson

Obama is the new Bush. They are finally facing the obvious (what we on the right have known since the days of the campaign), Obama is as big a gaffe machine as Bush:

We all remember those nerve-racking George W. Bush speeches and press conferences. Flubs, gaffes and mispronunciations came so fast and furious, it was like watching that old anti-drug ad. You remember: They cracked an egg into the hot frying pan and said, “This is your brain on drugs.”
For a few blissful weeks into the reign of Obama, I thought those drug-addled, white-knuckle days were past. But tonight he’ll be on “60 Minutes” answering questions far tougher than Leno’s. Will it be an uh-uh-uh-uh-uh night? An um-um-um-um-um night? Will he go after oldsters or maybe chubbettes?
Who knows?
I do know my shattered nerves can’t take it.

Poor lefty! She’s going to have a very tough four years. Believe me, I know :-)
BTW, she didn’t include in her column Obama’s latest gaffe:

Obama, touring a California electric car plant on Thursday, said, “The 1908 Model T — think about this — the 1908 Model T earned better gas mileage than the typical SUV in 2008.”
“Think about that: 100 years later, and we’re getting worse gas mileage, not better, on SUVs,” Obama said.

Yeah, real smart comparing a car to an SUV. But what’s even funnier:

Jay Klehfoth, chief executive officer of the Centerville, Ind.-based Model T Ford Club of America, said he averages about 25 mpg on his four Model Ts. But with an array of modern regulations, he noted, “You couldn’t build a Model T today because the government wouldn’t let you put it on the road.”



Advertisement
Comments read comments(30)
post a comment
Moonshadow

posted March 22, 2009 at 11:40 am


I could never watch/listen to Bush … or Clinton for that matter. But that’s because of their southern accents.



report abuse
 

Does Michele own a Dictionary?

posted March 22, 2009 at 12:28 pm


How is that a gaffe? Do you know what that word means?
“Putting food on your family” is a gaffe. Comparing a car to an SUV isn’t a gaffe.
For Christ’s sake, woman – I’d say you’re embarrassing yourself, but you have no shame.



report abuse
 

MzEllen

posted March 22, 2009 at 12:53 pm


While really and physically putting food on your family would indeed be a “social blunder”, the phrase is more of a mis-phrasing.
Comparing a Model-T to an SUV…well, it does fall under dictionary.com’s 2nd definition: A blatant mistake or misjudgment.
Speaking of needing a dictionary…they’re so easy to find on line.



report abuse
 

Julie

posted March 22, 2009 at 1:57 pm


“Will it be an uh-uh-uh-uh-uh night?”
The above Michele statement says everything we need to know about her.



report abuse
 

MzEllen

posted March 22, 2009 at 2:31 pm


Julie, you’re here.
As I posted earlier, I posted earlier:
I addressed your very serious accusation against a sister in a previous post.
Would you please address my response? Thank you so much for not ignoring a response to your very serious (and false) accusation.
If you are going to make such serious accusations, it seems right that you respond to an answer to your [I believe false] accusations.
If you ignore any response, it would seem that you are unwilling to even consider that you could possibly even maybe be mistaken – not even be willing to address the response.



report abuse
 

Julie

posted March 22, 2009 at 2:47 pm


The US cannot continue to use substantially more oil per person than any other country.
Obama has received considerable respect world wide for focusing on making alternative energy happen.
Instead of Michele focusing on thing that are not important when considering the big picture, she might stop to think about what he is trying to do for us and generations to come.
His effort will make a cleaner and safer world for her children and future grandchildren.
There is a major difference between a gaffe and making fun of someone that occasionally stutters.
Comedy shows did it with Bush, but I would not expect it from a Christian.
Neither would the Reformed Church that believes God’s will selects the president and members are to be respectful even if they disagree.
Bush and Obama are both introverts by nature. Introverts process information longer before speaking.
Making fun of someone for the way God made them is an evil thing to do.



report abuse
 

MzEllen

posted March 22, 2009 at 2:55 pm


Yeah, I didn’t think so.
Making fun of someone for the way God made them is an evil thing to do.
“Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks…”
“sort of like special olympics…”
ouch…one set of rules for liberals…another set for everybody else…



report abuse
 

MzEllen

posted March 22, 2009 at 3:02 pm


There is a major difference between a gaffe and making fun of someone that occasionally stutters.
Weren’t you the one who said that I should have paid attention to what a good communicator President Obama is? I’m sure I would have heard you speak up with others made fun of Mr. Bush (here, I mean…I don’t cyber stalk you so I don’t know where else you comment.)
It might have escaped you (as you commented about me a few days ago: I’m assuming you have decent reading skills) but it was a liberal writer that Michele was quoting.
And the “gaffe” was comparing a Model-T to a modern SUV; it was the liberal that referred to the ummms as a “gaffe”…or maybe it was a
“flub” or “mispronunciation” – she used both terms.
Now…since you’re back to accusations, how about if we (again) address the (false) accusations that I responded to (and that you are now ignoring (how Christian is THAT?)
I think that every time you accuse Michele, we’ll go back to those false accusations that you are now ignoring the response to.



report abuse
 

MzEllen

posted March 22, 2009 at 4:10 pm


Julie, just in case you ever get to the point where you’d like to do the Christian thing and respond to my answers, I’ve saved my comments to my desktop in Dreamweaver. Just for the record.



report abuse
 

Scott R.

posted March 22, 2009 at 4:44 pm


You’re just going to disrupt every thread with your vendetta against Julie, aren’t you Ellen?
Get over it. She won’t answer you. But if you keep pulling each post off topic, you are going to get reported as a disruptive influence, ‘K?
Half of all the posts here belong to you. If you like the “sound” of your “voice” so much, get your own blog on Beliefnet.



report abuse
 

Julie

posted March 22, 2009 at 4:54 pm


MzEllen,
You are continuing with they did it so it is ok for me to do it justification for making very mean spirited comments. As the Bible clearly say, that is not the way Christians are supposed to be. Christians are called to be better and to treat others better, even when they say something you consider wrong.
An occasional stutter does not make someone a bad communicator. Many people that could rise above the gutter, praised Obama’s explanations on Jay Leno. The praised his ability to explain difficult things in easy to understand language. Obama received high ratings during his many years as a teacher.
Obama is a great communicator at town hall meeting. He does not screen the questions. When the audience boos a question, he tells them to stop, every question is a legitimate question.
MzEllen’s bully type demands to have her questions are very hypocritical considering the large number of my questions that she never answered.
I do not care whether the person was a liberal, moderate, conservative or whatever other label you want to use, making fun of someone that occasionally stutters is wrong.
Obama’s Special Olympics was a dumb thing to say, but he did not have an evil motive behind the statement. Obama called the head of the Special Olympics to apologize and make amends.
Has Michele ever apologized for any of her statements? Is she going to be accountable for her behavior and say making fun of someone that stutters is the wrong thing to do – that it would not please God?
It only takes reading a few of Michele’s blogs to know she has an evil motive.



report abuse
 

MzEllen

posted March 22, 2009 at 4:58 pm


Scott, you are correct…
Julie, accuse away.
Scott, will you please step up then, the next time Julie makes an accusation? Thanks.



report abuse
 

MzEllen

posted March 22, 2009 at 5:09 pm


Never mind, Scott.



report abuse
 

Guy Arthur Thomas

posted March 22, 2009 at 5:13 pm


The OBAMANATION gaffe machine.
This clown is bombing worse than Rosie O’Donnell’s variety show…hahahahahahahaha!
Yes, he is awful and it’s already a failure filled with Tax Cheats, Liars and a telepromoter dependent bore of a President.
Next Please!



report abuse
 

JB

posted March 22, 2009 at 5:43 pm


This is stupid snark. I expect better thoughtfulness from folks who believe themselves to be Christian.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted March 22, 2009 at 5:47 pm


Michelle’s rants against the “lefties” or liberalism are as hypocritical, two-faced and dishonest as everything else she spews.
“The influences that have lifted the race to a higher moral level are education, freedom, leisure, the humanizing tendency of a better-supplied and more interesting life. In a word, science and liberalism… have accomplished the very things for which religion claims the credit.” – E. Haldeman-Julius
The OBAMANATION gaffe machine.
Boris says: The Republican Party is one big gaffe machine as anyone who remembers Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush and his stupid vice president who couldn’t even spell potato. Just look up their gaffes on the Internet for hours of raucous laughter.
This clown is bombing worse than Rosie O’Donnell’s variety show…hahahahahahahaha!
Boris says: Not nearly as bad as his Republican opponent though who was a walking gaffe machine himself and then decided to have a mental retard and pathological liar as his running mate. Poor old Republican Senator John McCain made a massive gaffe when he accidentally sided with the Democrats who have accused people in the Western Pennsylvania region of clinging to religion and guns. He told voters: “You know, I think you may have noticed that Senator Obama’s supporters have been saying some pretty nasty things about Western Pennsylvania lately. And you know, I couldn’t agree with them more.” Whoops! Obama won the election because his opponent was an idiot.
Yes, he is awful and it’s already a failure filled with Tax Cheats, Liars and a telepromoter dependent bore of a President.
Boris says: Sure, that’s why his approval rating keeps going up while Bush’s and every other Republican presidents has gone down as soon as they entered office.
Next Please!
Boris says: Does anyone pay any attention to Guy Arthur Dishonest?



report abuse
 

All Hail Glorious Guy Arthur Thomas

posted March 22, 2009 at 8:00 pm


Yes, Boris the Atheist, many faithful readers of this blog recognize Guy Arthur Thomas as the true voice conservatism he is. A voice of wisdom, of eloquence, and, recently, of upper and lower case.



report abuse
 

anonymous reincarnate

posted March 22, 2009 at 9:39 pm


michele has been diagnosed with ods.



report abuse
 

clinton7

posted March 22, 2009 at 10:47 pm


Michele,
Many liberals will soon understand that it is much harder to defend the blunders of our president than it was to attack the last one as an idiot. I hope Obama succeeds as our president, but I also hope other more reasonable voices succeed at bringing some sanity to what he’s trying to do on some of the more “off-the-wall” proposals.
The word that comes to mind when I watch Obama and his staff is, NOVICE.
I know its a difficult job, but stop acting so cute and get to work. After all, he did ask for the job.
Peace & Progress,
Clinton7



report abuse
 

Julie

posted March 23, 2009 at 1:21 am


clinton7,
You underestimate liberals. They have no problem speaking out when they disagree.
All through the election, I heard the false claims about Obama and the biased liberal media. The New York Times was repeatedly accused of meaning one of those bad liberal media that picked on McCain. One only has to read today’s issue of the New York Times to find out the liberal media are not biased.
Obama received considerable praise from conservative Republican David Brooks on his education speech. I appreciate a Republican or Democrat that can find good things to say about someone that they disagree with on many issues.
‘No Picnic for Me Either’
http://tinyurl.com/dfol63



report abuse
 

Paul

posted March 23, 2009 at 7:30 pm


The Model T, when it came out, only got up to 21 mpg. Still better than many modern SUVs. The Model A, produced from 1927 to 1933 got between 25 and 33 mpg. It was a much better car.
The US average mpg fell during the eight years of the Bush administration. There were two SUV models produced by Humvee, one which got about 12 mpg and another which got 8. The Bush administration awarded tax credits for those who purchased the more expensive 8 mpg model.
I wish “conservatives” would get it, that better gas mileage is better for our environment and for our international trade deficit. Pouring wealth into the hands of the Saudi royal family only helps foment societal polarization, which will lead to further strife and discord. Why were most of the 9/11 hijackers saudi nationals?



report abuse
 

Paul

posted March 23, 2009 at 7:38 pm


How is comparing the most popular automobile sold from 1920 to 1928, the Model T, to the most popular type of automobile sold in the past eight years, the SUV, a gaffe?
How is it a gaffe to compare the mileage on 1927 automobiles to that of the 2007 automobiles?
I’m kind of embarrassed conservatives cannot seem to recognize the wisdom of improving fuel economy. I was at a car show in 1988, when Ronald Reagan was president. Many of the US cars there got 12 to 16 mpg. One european automobile got better than 50 mpg. But hey, Saudi oil is ours to burn. So now is Iraqi oil. God bless America!



report abuse
 

MzEllen

posted March 23, 2009 at 8:11 pm


How is it a gaffe to compare the mileage on 1927 automobiles to that of the 2007 automobiles?
The weight of the car
the kind of fuel used – leaded gas gave better mileage
the tires
the weight that the car could carry
safety regulations that add weight
The speeds that the cars were driven at…



report abuse
 

MzEllen

posted March 23, 2009 at 8:13 pm


I’m kind of embarrassed conservatives cannot seem to recognize the wisdom of improving fuel economy.
Did somebody here say that or is that a straw man?



report abuse
 

Paul

posted March 24, 2009 at 1:57 pm


No, the straw man is to suggest there are no factors for improving fuel efficiency over the course of a century. The straw man is the suggestion it is somehow ludicrous to compare automobiles. Yes–anything that improves fuel efficiency is worth considering. Vehicle weight. We use a lot less steel and lighter engines now than we used to. The Model T probably isn’t that great a comparison, since its best fuel efficiency was 21 to 25 mpg. Better would be the Model A, which got 25 to 30 mpg, yet was heavier than most modern vehicles, and easily ran 50 to 60 mph on good roads. Safety (and polution control) features (regulations themselves are recorded on paper elsewhere–just to be pedantic) do add some weight, reducing fuel efficiency. But any factor is worthy of consideration. If all modern SUVs were hybrids that averaged 40 to 50 mpg, no one could point out modern vehicles were less fuel efficient than those of nearly a century ago. Fuel efficiency doesn’t have to rest solely on engine and carburetor design, if we had cars that ran off irrigation ditch water with no more pollution than modern vehicles, again there would be no problem to point out.
China mandates higher fuel efficiency standards for passenger vehicles than we do. The point is that the previous administration saw fit to pass on the mantle of leadership to our asian brothers. Instead of the environment we focused our attention on raping the resources of Iraq.



report abuse
 

Paul

posted March 24, 2009 at 2:07 pm


Let’s compare improvements in fuel efficiency to improvements in mobile telephones. You used to lug around a brick and mobile service was both limited and expensive. You can now do full voice and video on a device you can conceal in the palm of your hand. The point HERE is that there were big profit incentives for improving cell phone technology. The reason we don’t have higher fuel efficiency standards is because there are BIG PROFIT INCENTIVES against that. Nearly a century ago automobile manufacturers acquired and dismantled inter urban rail lines and other modes of public transportation to stifle competition. In that same spirit Dick Cheney’s secret energy task force also sought to stifle advancements in fuel economy, to guarantee continued profits for the oil industry. While our economy was collapsing, who reported the biggest quarterly profits of any business in recorded history, again and again?
This is one thing conservatives DO get, and they enjoy getting it all. Concentrating the wealth into the hands of those who most deserve it.



report abuse
 

Robert

posted March 25, 2009 at 6:59 am


Indeed, China, a model of a green economy….



report abuse
 

MzEllen

posted March 25, 2009 at 7:09 am


The Model T probably isn’t that great a comparison, since its best fuel efficiency was 21 to 25 mpg.
Just what Michele was saying…
No, the straw man is to suggest there are no factors for improving fuel efficiency over the course of a century.
A straw man is to argue against a claim that was never made.
Nobody said here that we don’t see the wisdom in increasing fuel efficiency, only that comparing a modern car to a Model T is not a good comparison.
China mandates higher fuel efficiency standards for passenger vehicles than we do.
If a gasoline company adds ethenol to gasoline, mileage drops.
The “Energy Policy Act” of 2005 (signed into law by President Bush) mandates that the amount of biofuels that are added to gasoline be increased, thus reducing the need for petroleum, but also reducing fuel efficiency.
Did the Model A run on gasoline that had biofuel, thus reducing its mileage?



report abuse
 

anonymous reincarnate

posted March 25, 2009 at 11:26 am


paul, it’s an obvious gaffe to conservatives simply by the fact that it came out of obama’s mouth.
all of what ellen pointed out is moot. the tires, the weight, the type of fuel used are a red herring. what she points out would be worth considering if there was in fact different utilization of the modern SUV. yes, it’s bigger, heavier, with more torque and horse power, capable of hauling much more weight. the problem is that by large, the modern SUV hauls one or two people around town at relatively the same speeds as the model t did. how many people use the 4×4 feature that adds significant weight to their heavy “duty” truck?
when gas is cheap, it’s easy to be lazy. but designing and building cars that can get 100 miles to the gallon (or that use something other than conventional gasoline) when we already have many of the technologies shouldn’t be put off because a bunch of conservatives are happy with the status quo.
it is perfectly appropriate to compare the model t to today’s cars and wonder why so many other things have improved but efficiency has gotten worse. to those conservatives who say that it’s not possible, i say pull your head out.
“Did the Model A run on gasoline that had biofuel, thus reducing its mileage?”
the point of increasing mileage and also of adding biofuel is to reduce the amount of gasoline (not fuel in general) used. both achieve that goal.



report abuse
 

MzEllen

posted March 25, 2009 at 4:29 pm

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.