Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

How many times do we have to explain to you...

Posted By: Factcheck.org is not a repubitable site on 2009-02-27
In Reply to: Factcheck.org link inside - Obama birth certificate - nothing wrong with reputable sources for your - news, people! sm

Especially since what they have posted is a forgery.




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Then explain his church and minister. Explain that to me. nm
x
LA times
Everyone knows the L.A. Times is a liberal rag.
How many times?
Really is irrelevant. This woman is being used as a shill for a Marxist/Leninist organization called ANSWER, which has anything but America's interests at heart.
100 times????????

Okay, so when caught lying just spin an even bigger lie.


This is really getting out of hand on this board.  All you CONS do is lie.  This is crazy.


Okay, so please cite the 100 times I have accused someone of lying.  This is your chance to squash us libs once and for all.  I am waiting.


Maybe 300 times? nm

How many times have you said ANYthing?

How many times have you used that
just curious
How many times do I have to say this? sm
NO ONE, NOT ANYONE, EVEN A MOTHER OR A FATHER, can renounce a child's American citizenship, ONLY the child at the age of majority, 21, can choose to revoke it. PERIOD! Get it? NO ONE! This is per my brother who is an immigration attorney.
How many times have we seen

reporting that there is nothing to report...over...and over...and over, and repeating the information they DO have over, and over, and over?  Going to the suspect's neighborhood, place of worship, high school, etc. trying to interview the ex-wife, parents, other people he knew, speculating like crazy just to fill air time and keep a big story alive?  Or investigating the victim of the crime, going to his neighborhood, interview family, etc.,  to make the victim seem either a saint or a stinker? 


The press never takes no for an answer.  Denied hard facts from court or cops, they generally just make pests of themselves messing around in the suspect's personal life to find nuggets to report, then blather on and on.  But they apparently do not consider this a big story.  That they are not following their usual pattern in itself is a big story.


And many, many times...
physical abuse and murder happen without even a trace of slander. Go figure. ;-)
LA Times Article

Great article in opinion section of LA Times (you can get it online).  Dated 06/24/2005, "Hustling on K Street" by Jonathan Chait, concerning Bush paying back the lobbyists and big business.


Reps. John Conyers and Maxine Waters are trying to get a meeting going in Congress tomorrow with Republicans joining in this time to debate and discuss the Downing Street Memos.  Dont know if it will be covered on C-Span, sure hope so.


Laughter for trying times.




Ain't that the truth!!! ~MJ

 

 


 

You accused someone several times of something they did not do. sm
And yet you harp on.  Have you no shame?
I probably have used third person at times....

Why is it so important to you? 


And if you cannot see the obvious differences in writing, well, you appear to be quite ignorant or unobservant or else you are not telling the truth.  But that is your problem and I am not going to make it mine!!!


Yes, PK, too many lies too many times

How many times are you going to say the same thing?!
Geesh! Get over it! You already said, "attacking an innocent..." like a million times! Wow! Move on to the next story already!
No, that would be you......several times today and beyond...nm
z
I don't dismiss. How many times have I said...
that all of us should vote for who we feel is best for the country? How is that dismissing? Yes, I am conservative, have always been conservative. I have not changed...the parties have changed. That is why I am now independent..independent of any party. That is how I view being an independent. You have to register as SOMETHING to vote in national elections...and independent most closely defines me at this point, not republican or democrat.
From Asia Times
  http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JI03Aa02.html
Fannie Mae/NY Times
Check out the date on this. Of course, this came as no surprise to me. It's surprising to ever find an objective article from the NY Times, but sometimes they surprise us.

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES

Published: September 30, 1999
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.



How many times are you going to reply
about my name, does it bother you this much? You really got too much time on your hands!
Tough times

Notice what affilitation the top 6 are! - N wonder they don't care if we're in a recession.


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/54838.html


Messiah-end times
If after reading this email you disagree, Please, no need to reply back to me. Your opinion is yours and that's fine, just delete it.
*******************************
A lot of Americans have become so insulated from reality that they imagine that  America can suffer defeat without any inconvenience to themselves.
Pause a moment, reflect back.
These events are actual events from history..
They really happened!!!
Do you remember?
1. 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by a Muslim male extremist.
2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by Muslim male extremists.
3. In 1979, the  US embassy in Iran was taken over by Muslim male extremists.
4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by Muslim male extremists.
5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by Muslim male extremists.
6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by Muslim male extremists.
7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at  Athens , and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by Muslim male extremists.
8. In 1988 , Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by Muslim male extremists.
9. In 1993 the World   Trade Center was bombed the first time by Muslim male extremists.
10. In 1998, the  US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim male extremists.
11. On 9/11/01 , four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take down the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by Muslim male extremists.
12. In 2002 the  United States fought a war in Afghanistan against Muslim male extremists.
13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by-- you guessed it-- Muslim male extremists..
No, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people... Absolutely No Profiling!
They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winner and former Governor Joe Foss,  but leave Muslim Males alone lest they be guilty of profiling.
According to The Book of Revelations:
The Anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, he will destroy everything.
And Now:
For the award winning Act of Stupidity Of all times the People of America want to elect, to the most Powerful position on the face of the Planet -- The Presidency of the United states of America ... A Male of Muslim descent who is the most extremely liberal Senator in Congress (in other words an extremist) and in his 40s.
Have the American People completely lost their Minds, or just their Power of Reason ???
I'm sorry but I refuse to take a chance on the 'unknown' candidate Obama...
Let's send this to as many people as we can so that the Gloria Aldreds and other stupid attorneys along with Federal Justices that want to thwart common sense, feel ashamed of themselves -- if they have any such sense.
As the writer of the award winning story 'Forrest Gump' so aptly put it,
'Stupid Is As Stupid Does'
 
 
Each opportunity that you have to send it to a friend or media outlet....do it!
or again. .  just delete if you disagree.
Think of times someone has made fun of you.
nm
Because, as has been pointed out, several times here....
he is still in charge.  Obama isn't even in the White House yet, but you seem to think it's fine and dandy to talk about him.  I can see Russia from my house, also.
How many times in the last 8 years did
a chance to succeed? You used the phrase "last 8 years" or "8 years ago" 5 times in your post and President's Bush's name 4 times. It is not just you, most people say "for the last 7-1/2 years" or last 8 years, etc. To me that means that they never gave our current president a chance and have never respected him or his office. However, these same people expect everyone who did not vote for Obama to instantly forget everything we have learned about him and fall at his feet. Well, some of us are not drunk on his Kool-Aid and he has to earn our respect.
GP - how many times do we have to repeat
It is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center and is funded by the Annenberg Foundation. Obama, Bill Ayers, and Factcheck.org all have ties to the Annenberg Foundation.

Obama has ties to Factcheck.org. In 1995 Obama was appointed Board Chairman and President of the Annenberg Chicago Challenge - A branch of the Annenberg Foundation.

Factcheck.org is part of the Annenberg Foundation. Factcheck was also chosen by the Obama campaign as the arbitrar of Obama's birth certificate.

Anyone can put two and two together and see that Obama and The Annenberg Foundation pays Factcheck.org to put out the false information.

Factcheck claims it has "verified" the O's bc, but other sites has found several inconsistencies which call into question whether the certificate is authentic.

Before you tell anyone they should quit reading blogs that have any useful information, you should not be citing a website that is clearly misleading people and feeding them false information, and that is paid for by the Annenberg Foundation which = Obama.
LOL....more like 3 times a night...(sm)

He actually provides enough goofs to keep 2 channels busy -- MSNBC and Comedy Central.


I have to watch O'Reilly.  It's like watching a train wreck.  How else would I know what Jon Stewart and Colbert and talking about....LOL.


Personally, I tried 6 times and still

can't get away from them. Even this tax probably won't help. You name it, I've tried it except Chantix (sp) but I need a doctor to prescribe it and I don't have a doctor yet.


My mom smoked until she was 79. Died 4 months later. DH doesn't care if I don't quit after that because his mother died 6 months after she quit. Doesn't make sense, but it did happen.


Because I was corrected a few times on here, that's why. (nm)
.
Yeah.......... Times are getting so bad......... sm
criminals are going to have to get jobs!

Good to see you Marmann. I read below of your most recent illness. Sorry to hear that happened but glad to see you are feeling well enough to argue with the rest of us bathrobe pundits!
How many times do you have to be reminded
Guess you couldn't argue with anything I had to say so you picked on "your" versus "you're". If you going to be the spelling police then please stay off this board.

So you don't think I'm an MT because I spelled your wrong????? Talk about freaky that there are people with this kind of mindset. Is your (you're) a medical term? No. How about encephalopathy, rheumatoid arthritis, facet rhizotomy, essential hypertension, and how about millions of other "medical" terms.

Don't you know the difference between this board and an official medical report. Here, let me educate you. This here board that you are on is called MTStars. It has many different topics you can go to. You can gab about issues that concern you (non-political/religious), but if you want to have a political or religious discussion you come to one of these specialized boards. Now if you want to be spelling police you are not to come to this board. There are other sites where you can do that. If you type in some different terms in Google you might find one to your liking. Otherwise stay off this board.

Hence, because you evidently do not know the difference between MTStars gab/political boards and offical medical document I highly doubt you are an MT my dear.

I have been MT'ing for 10 years now, and you know what...I could give a rat's you know what whether or not you think I'm an MT because I spelled it your instead of you're.

And also don't presume to know what party I am, because your showing how true it is about people who assume.

Take your spelling police protocol elsewhere or don't come on the board at all.
How many more times are you going to post about this
I've responded to your silliness below. Kindly read the response to the posts you have ALREADY made without repeating yourself endlessly. PLEASE.
Exactly! You may need to post this 5 more times
nm
Lots of times...
because their behavior is DISGUSTING and that's what we teach our kids, to bash the behavior. Just like any other bad behavior. If you want to label yourself as a sick behavior then accept the consequences of being bashed.
How many times was Clinton

accused of sexual harrassment? I mean seriously.  You've got Edwards cheating on his wife who was dying...what is up with that anyway....she is still alive and wrote a book.  Is she not dying now? 


This kind of crap happens on both dems and pubs side.  I'm not saying that either side is right when doing it.  I frankly find it disgusting but if you are going to go after pubs it might be nice to look at your own party first and see that people in both parties pull this kind of crap.  What is truly sad is that people only seem to go after the politicians in the opposing party rather than holding them all accountable for this kind of crap.


Please explain to me what we are not
doing to protect ourselves here?  You just assume there's nothing in place here to protect us because you believe all the unsubstantiated liberal talking points that come out ever day.   Believe it or not part of protecting us here at home is making the world a more stable place.  We can't just hope they won't make the long journey over here like they did in the 1700 and 1800s.  Today, in just a few short hours they can walk off of any commercial airline or private plane.  We are in Iraq for a myriad of reasons including protecting our own boarders.  Why does this have to be explained over and over again to you?  A lot of liberals call conservatives narrow minded, but many of you have tunnel vision to a degree I've never seen before.
Let me explain how I can say that.

I agree with you that there were inciting posts from both political viewpoints on the conservative board, myself included.  However, I think what is being pointed out was a general trend of "anything goes" for the conservative posters and high deletion/banning rates for the liberals.  This has been apparent for a long time and complained about many, many times (usually complaints are deleted so they are virtually impossible to document at this point).  I personally was warned once for "picking on" Nan, when objectively, it really was more the other way around.  There is a sickness of spirit on the conservative board at times.  I was drawn into this and became "ill" also at times.  I am not proud of this.


As far as the moderator or administrator, she did post in the Christian board some time ago regarding her beliefs.  They were evangelical Christian, kind of extreme.  That, coupled with occasional comments on the political board in addition to deleting LOTS of liberal posts and actively supporting and not reigning in the Conservatives is, well, just common sense as to her political leanings. 


Explain please
I don't have ESP...
So please explain this:
If marriage is for procreation, and Mary and Joseph were married, why and how was Mary still supposedly a VIRGIN when Jesus was born?
Well, then perhaps you could explain to me
why Saddam's atrocities didn't seem to bother us in the 80s when we wanted his help against Iran?
This might help explain why.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/07/washington/07recruit.html?ex=1309924800&en=1be0e7d4e2aac8d3&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss


7, 2006



Hate Groups Are Infiltrating the Military, Group Asserts




A decade after the Pentagon declared a zero-tolerance policy for racist hate groups, recruiting shortfalls caused by the war in Iraq have allowed large numbers of neo-Nazis and skinhead extremists to infiltrate the military, according to a watchdog organization.


The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks racist and right-wing militia groups, estimated that the numbers could run into the thousands, citing interviews with Defense Department investigators and reports and postings on racist Web sites and magazines.


We've got Aryan Nations graffiti in Baghdad, the group quoted a Defense Department investigator as saying in a report to be posted today on its Web site, www.splcenter.org. That's a problem.


A Defense Department spokeswoman said officials there could not comment on the report because they had not yet seen it.


The center called on Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to appoint a task force to study the problem, declare a new zero tolerance policy and strictly enforce it.


The report said that neo-Nazi groups like the National Alliance, whose founder, William Pierce, wrote The Turner Diaries, the novel that was the inspiration and blueprint for Timothy J. McVeigh's bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building, sought to enroll followers in the Army to get training for a race war.


The groups are being abetted, the report said, by pressure on recruiters, particularly for the Army, to meet quotas that are more difficult to reach because of the growing unpopularity of the war in Iraq.


The report quotes Scott Barfield, a Defense Department investigator, saying, Recruiters are knowingly allowing neo-Nazis and white supremacists to join the armed forces, and commanders don't remove them from the military even after we positively identify them as extremists or gang members.


Mr. Barfield said Army recruiters struggled last year to meet goals. They don't want to make a big deal again about neo-Nazis in the military, he said, because then parents who are already worried about their kids signing up and dying in Iraq are going to be even more reluctant about their kids enlisting if they feel they'll be exposed to gangs and white supremacists.


The 1996 crackdown on extremists came after revelations that Mr. McVeigh had espoused far-right ideas when he was in the Army and recruited two fellow soldiers to aid his bomb plot. Those revelations were followed by a furor that developed when three white paratroopers were convicted of the random slaying of a black couple in order to win tattoos and 19 others were discharged for participating in neo-Nazi activities.


The defense secretary at the time, William Perry, said the rules were meant to leave no room for racist and extremist activities within the military. But the report said Mr. Barfield, who is based at Fort Lewis, Wash., had said that he had provided evidence on 320 extremists there in the past year, but that only two had been discharged. He also said there was an online network of neo-Nazis.


They're communicating with each other about weapons, about recruiting, about keeping their identities secret, about organizing within the military, he said. Several of these individuals have since been deployed to combat missions in Iraq.


The report cited accounts by neo-Nazis of their infiltration of the military, including a discussion on the white supremacist Web site Stormfront. There are others among you in the forces, one participant wrote. You are never alone.


An article in the National Alliance magazine Resistance urged skinheads to join the Army and insist on being assigned to light infantry units.


The Southern Poverty Law Center identified the author as Steven Barry, who it said was a former Special Forces officer who was the alliance's military unit coordinator.


Light infantry is your branch of choice because the coming race war and the ethnic cleansing to follow will be very much an infantryman's war, he wrote. It will be house-to-house, neighborhood-by-neighborhood until your town or city is cleared and the alien races are driven into the countryside where they can be hunted down and 'cleansed.'


He concluded: As a professional soldier, my goal is to fill the ranks of the United States Army with skinheads. As street brawlers, you will be useless in the coming race war. As trained infantrymen, you will join the ranks of the Aryan warrior brotherhood.


Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company


Like I said....we all only have to explain our
own decisions to God. Remember your argument here to me. It may come in handy.

God bless.
Someone explain this to me...

If you are a suspected terrorist or suspected terrorist sympathizer you can go to Gitmo or sent out of the country to a place where torture is A-OK for the rest of your life w/o being given a reason for the incarceration or access to our legal system, even if you are an American citizen but....if you are on a list of terror suspects, you can buy a gun just like everyone else.

Published on Saturday, May 5, 2007 by Associated Press
NRA: Don’t Ban Gun Sales to Suspected Terrorists
by Sam Hananel

WASHINGTON - The National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms. Backed by the Justice Department, the measure would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales, licenses or permits to terror suspects.

In a letter this week to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, NRA executive director Chris Cox said the bill, offered last week by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., “would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere ’suspicions’ of a terrorist threat.” 0506 07

“As many of our friends in law enforcement have rightly pointed out, the word ’suspect’ has no legal meaning, particularly when it comes to denying constitutional liberties,” Cox wrote.

In a letter supporting the measure, Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling said the bill would not automatically prevent a gun sale to a suspected terrorist. In some cases, federal agents may want to let a sale go forward to avoid compromising an ongoing investigation.

Hertling also notes there is a process to challenge denial of a sale.

Current law requires gun dealers to conduct a criminal background check and deny sales if a gun purchaser falls under a specified prohibition, including a felony conviction, domestic abuse conviction or illegal immigration. There is no legal basis to deny a sale if a purchaser is on a terror watch list.

“When I tell people that you can be on a terrorist watch list and still be allowed to buy as many guns as you want, they are shocked,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which supports Lautenberg’s bill.

In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, lawmakers are considering a number of measures to strengthen gun sale laws. The NRA, which usually opposes increased restrictions on firearms, is taking different positions depending on the proposal.

“Right now law enforcement carefully monitors all firearms sales to those on the terror watch list,” said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. “Injecting the attorney general into the process just politicizes it.”

A 2005 study by the Government Accountability Office found that 35 of 44 firearm purchase attempts over a five-month period made by known or suspected terrorists were approved by the federal law enforcement officials.

© 2007 The Associated Press.


Will someone please explain to me -
Why do you keep saying our vote does not count and that the next President has already been chosen? 
I for one, have too much to do, to try to explain it....sm
to you, because frankly, I'm getting so I don't care.

There's nothing to find out, and they're making stuff up, so until you have something substantial, I have work to do.


However, if you would have posted about the screaming witch woman from up north and her rag on her, I would have really busted a gut being upset.

As it is, I'm just letting it all go, because Gov. Palin is better than you, better than me, and better than the media.

She will rise above it all, and come out on top. Of this, I have no doubts whatsoever.


That's all I have to say on the matter, cuz I have too much to type for more here....


Look at who you are trying to explain this to
xx
Please explain...
Please explain exactly how Democratic voters are misled.  How are they being misled???  What, can they not read the English on the voter card?  All I know is Ohio had 200,000 dead and nonexistant voters voting for Obama.  I don't think it's the Democratic voters who are being misled, I think it's the American people, who don't realize what a complete scam is going on with this ACORN group. 
Would someone please explain
How McCain  can "guarantee" he's going to win as he said on Meet The Press yesterday?
Perhaps this will help explain....
Remember him talking about the tax "credits?" That is his way of floating giving tax rebates to people who pay no taxes. This is the opinion from someone on the other side of the pond...and explains it pretty well.

OBAMA TAX PLAN – 95% BULL?

Obama’s tax plan is receiving much praise from some elements of the Tory blogosphere. Promising tax cuts for everything and everyone is certainly a very attractive position, and I can see why so many ObamaCons are attracted to it; but does the claim really stand up to scrutiny?

Firstly, if you look at Obama’s promise of tax cuts for 95% of Americans and then look at the billions of dollars needed for the government programs that he has pledged to implement or expand, and common sense should tell you that thing simply do not add up.

Secondly, the 95% of all Americans figure is suspect. Since more than 30% of working Americans don't pay any income taxes now - many in fact get a welfare check - how can they get a "tax cut?" So how does Obama back up this 95% claim? Well those of you with long memories may remember Bill Clinton’s battle to change the definition of what “is” is? What we are witnessing here is an attempt to change the definition of tax cut. To me, and I am guessing to most people, a tax cut means you get to keep more of what you earn. But for the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts disguised by the infamous "tax credit." All but one of these tax credits would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for an income transfer -- a government check -- from taxpayers to non taxpayers. In other words, increased welfare, a Demogrant if you will. Obama's marketing genius is to call this increase in welfare a tax cut; and given how UK conservatives have watched the collapse into failure of Gordon Browns tax credit system, I am mystified why they would support Obama’s.

That being said...he says it expands welfare. I say it is socialist. Same end result. Marxist redistribution of wealth. But it is working...LOL. He is sure hiding it from YOU.
Let's see if I can explain this to you..
most blacks voted for Obama; most are against gay marriage, as their vote points out. How hard is that for you to comprehend? The black vote FOR Obama hurt the gay marriage vote. Is that simpler for you to understand?