Observations based in truth are not smears
Posted By: they are, well..the truth. on 2008-11-03
In Reply to: Pretty hypocritical - sbMT
Go gourdpainter.
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
Fact Based or Faith Based Policies...sm
Click watch video in the link.
Most impressive statement is how the Bush administration has gotten away from fact based policy making.
The way some read the board, you can't take their observations very seriously.
Some people only see what they want to see, and what they set out to see.
Let's not be stupidly single-eyed here. You can pick out any person on the board (those who sign a name, at least) and screech that they're generalizing, and you'd be right - including you and including me. Big fat so what. We do it to make a point quickly or to give a general subject view or for a lot of reasons - but we all know that when we diss the rich we're not talking about every single rich person in the world, we're talking about that particular group of them whose ethics and moral values we find repugnant.
It would make discussion totally impossible if we had to qualify every reference we make to certain groups or political parties and single out every detail in a reference when people following the conversation ought to know to whom we are referring - that's just normally expected in a rapid fire conversation, at least for those who are genuinely interested in one.
Those ain't insults, they are observations! Man you guys R thin-skinned! LOL! NM
Smears are smears
when they don't come from reliable sources. Show me the tape from months and months ago where Michelle was suppose to have referred to "whitey." It never materialized Now show me the L.A. tape which was first talked about months ago but has just now become an issue. Show me PROOF that Obama was in cahoots with Ayers and the list goes on. I like to deal in FACTS and I have seen no facts (other than the preacher Wright) that impress me and THAT does impress me. Otherwise....smears.
Thanks for the vote for my intelligence...there are others who don't agree. LOL
Smears, name calling and
unsubstantiated accusations do not pass for intelligent political dialog. Seems like you have had plenty of time since November to absorb the reality that this kind of doo-doo is what lost the election for McC and his rogue sidekick. You might want to come up with a more inspired strategy.
It is interesting how these socialism smears
The fact that the US holds the greatest income inequity among all the developed countries. Income gains since the 1980s (Reagan years) have been slower, despite higher productivity, low unemployment rates and low inflation (until recently, that is). Median income rose over 80% for ALL classes between 1947 and 1980. While the general trend since the 1980s has been one of slow growth because of the increase in 2-income households, closing the gender gap and longer work yours, it has occurred as much greater accelerated rate for the TOP 1% OF EARNERS. The lowest 20% of income earners have seen their incomes rise by around 6%, while the top 1% or income earners have had an obscene increase of 175%!
At the end of 2001, the top 20% of income earners controlled a whopping 84% of all the wealth, 10% of the population owned 71% of the total national wealth and the top 1% controlled more than one-third of the wealth at 38%. Do that math. The bottom 80% (households earning $80,372 or less annually) controlled 16% of the wealth, the bottom 40%, (earning less than $40,184) less than 1% of the wealth.
Just mull those numbers over for a spell and decide if this picture seems fair and equitable. The issue is not one of socialism. It has to do with the notion of salary/wage parity. We can all see the results of an economy where this kind of wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few. Spreading the wealth does not necessarily mean enriching some at the expense of others. It means putting the control of national wealth in MORE hands, not fewer. I for one am all for seeing those hard-working, bill-paying, nose to the grindstone folks get more bucks and more bang for their bucks. How one looks at "spreading the wealth" is a bit like the proverbial half-full/half empty glass of water.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
True to their newest stand, right wing blogger smears family of murdered soldier.
Predictably, falling right in line with Tony Snow and his *2,500 is a number* statement on June 15, followed one day later by the fiercely *patriotic* Rush *I'dLoveToServeMyCountryButCan'tBecauseOfThisPimpleOnMyButt* Limbaugh, reminding them that aborted fetuses are more important than murdered American soldiers (as was posted on the *other* board on June 16), all the while publicly declaring that all liberals who post on this board don't care about our troops. *Profound* indeed.
http://www.prospect.org/horsesmouth/2006/06/post_134.html#002858
The Horse's Mouth
A blog about the reporting of politics -- and the politics of reporting. By Greg Sargent
« | Main | »
WINGNUT JOHN HINDERAKER SMEARS DEAD SOLDIER'S UNCLE. A couple of minutes ago I came across this Associated Press story saying that the uncle of Kristian Menchaca -- one of the U.S. soldiers who was missing and is now said to be dead -- criticized the United States for Menchaca's disappearance and death. My first thought was to do a post asking how long it would take before the wingnuts started smearing the grief-stricken uncle.
Alas, I'm too late. Over at Powerline Blog, John Hinderaker has already cranked up the slime machine and let fly:
In a sick coda, Menchaca's uncle, Ken MacKenzie, appeared on the Today show and recited weirdly inapplicable Democratic Party talking points in relation to his own nephew's death...No shame.
I've asked this before, but what is it about the relatives of people killed by terrorists that these wingnuts hate so much? Recall that Ann Coulter smeared the widows of 9/11 victims and that many righty bloggers smeared the father of Nick Berg, who was beheaded in Iraq. Their sin, of course, was that they criticized America and George Bush.
Let me put this as clearly as I can: To the likes of Hinderaker, the pain of those who lost loved ones to this war only matters to the extent that the bereaved allow their grief to be used to prop up the war effort and Bush himself. If the bereaved relatives don't allow their grief to be used in this fashion, their sacrifice and loss no longer matter a whit -- they're not to be pitied or empathized with, but scorned and humiliated as brutally as possible. Despicable.
--Greg Sargent
The truth sounds rude when put bluntly but still is the truth. nm
!!!! hahaha
Liberal truth vs. Conservative truth.
x
Based on what?
Your wishful thinking? I find it hard to believe you're a moderate conservative. 2008 is still a long way off. The liberals better find an agenda other than hating Bush before they'll have any chance in hades of electing more of them to congress much less to the White House.
BASED ON...???
You want to back up that comment?
Or are you just talking out of your backside?
Based on what? (nm)
x
Based on Cat 3. When NWS warning came out,
nm
It is based on income . . .
not on grades. You have to keep your grades up to keep receiving it, BUT the primary requirement to receive it is low income. So do you thing those who have done well for themselves should be required to give money to those who are below them if they are trying to do better? Because that is what is sounds like. As long as it is benefiting you, it is okay because you are trying to do better?
No matter how you slice it, you are still taking from those who have and giving it to havenots. Just stay consistent with your argument. Who is to say who HONESTLY deserves aid?
Yup. The one's that's based in reality.
As in the real deal.
Based on your response...
Your moniker is a misnomer...it should be Christian with hate!
Whether or not this is religiously based or not
I just cannot condone late-term abortions. For that to be legal.....I just think that would be horrible. If a child can survive outside of the womb even though it hasn't been born yet and then it is aborted.....that is just plain and simple murder and if we allow that....what does that say about us? I think abortion should be legal with some guidelines.
Right, not something based on facts but on a fixation
Based on what is going on right now with Russia and georgia...
I would say looking in his eyes and seeing KGB is pretty much on the mark. McCain knows who and what Russian "management" are. You can see what they think about negotiations. Basically told the world up yours, if we want Georgia back we are going to take it. Why doesn't Obama go visit them like he did Germany and give a speech about how he is a citizen of the world and see how far it gets him. Sigh....Careful what YOU ask for.
Based on what? Genitalia over issues?
She is not exactly champion of feminist issues. Not to worry. We're better than that. She's no Hillary and most of her supporters will not hesitate to point that out.
also based on a combination of bias
nm
The math is based on Sam's claim
If Sam is talking 80% approval rating in Alaska, that would imply that she is talking about people who actually are familiar with her policies, programs, credibility, how she conducts herself and soforth...in other words, approval rating among those who actually know her/voted for her. That is what a governor's approval rating is.
The math shows us how much of an overall approval rating of these same factors she has nationwide. SP was only in the governor's office for 20 months. She is still an unknown quantity here and will remain so. The only people who can rate her job performance are the one from her state, since she is not known in the lower 48. The math merely points out exactly what that means within the context of a national approval rating of job performance, since the rest of the 49 cannot possibly be included in that figure. Thus on a national level, that 0.182% means next to nothing.
Do you vote strictly based on what your
nm
My opinion is based on what Obama says and does...
not some anonymous right-wing wacko on a silly medical transcription site, who thinks fear mongering is the way to scare people into voting Republican. I get a good chuckle from your silly posts, and they prove wihtout a doubt that I have made the right choice in supporting Barack Omaba for President of these great United States.
You could stand on your head and spit fire, and all that would prove is that you are eligible for the circus!
Barack Obama for President 2008!
I have never seen welfare based on your color -
Where would you live that welfare would be based on your color? That seems like a crock to me!
Obama's plan is not based on
The government will not be "in charge" of anything excep ACCESS to a healthcare coverage plan. It will still be private companies and if you don't want the national plan, you do not have to join it....keep your own if you like. Read the plan. All he is proposing is to open up the current plan that now covers Congress, Senate and federal employees to citizens. That plan is like any other. It has several different deductible schemes, choices of levels of coverage (PPO/HMO) and a range of premium amounts. All O is trying to do is make health care available to all Americans at affordable prices.
So your political acumen is based on
Tarot cards, crystal balls, mystic revelations, fortune telling, dye casting and Voo-doo-doo?
Our 'economy' SHOULD collapse - it was based
even richer at our expense. Everything about the last 8 years was a lie and a travesty. They finally pushed the middle class to the brink of extinction. Now that the middle class finally couldn't support the Rich anymore, they voted someone into office who's calling them out. Sure they're mad as he11. I think this is only the beginning. Will it hurt everyone? Including those of us that voted for a democratic president. You bet. This near-depression has gone on for so long that it likely will continue for years, not just months. You can blame the dems all you want, but next time you cant pay your rent or your heating bill, just remember that the ones who are keeping you down are all those in the Rich Boys' Club (including your current employers) because for all these years our government was giving them a free ride to do whatever they wanted. Our top-heavy, 'trickle-down', step-on-the-little-guy economy was way overdue for a major correction. It DESERVES to fail.
I don't judge people based on religion.
You're just prejudiced. That is not based in fact...
Just because you say that's what he'll do, doesn't make it so.
You just wish he was as bad as you think he is.
Fact is that he's kept you safe in your own country for over 7 years.
But you'll never admit it.
Another argument based on false premise.
underpinnings of our democracy? Here's a clue just for you. What is the function of the Supreme Court? Since when do the 3 branches of our govt NOT interpret the constitution? This has absolutely nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with the ignorance you seem to feel compelled to display, and dern proudly, I might add.
Before you try to tell the rest of us how we should be thinking and such, perhaps you should be addressing your own severe afflictions, starting with your blind hatred.
Much scarier would be government decisions based on God.
Keep religion out of government and leave it in the churches where it belongs!
It is a sound document based in fact.
As we can see in the archives of this very board.
What exactly do you find alarming about it? What do you think is not truthful? Do you think that domestic terrorism does not exist? Do you think that nothing should be done to monitor potential threats to our safety within our own borders? Would you object so vocally if the report pertained to extremist liberals?
Or did you not read the actual document and simply read Malkin's piece?
She could teach a class on it solely based on what she learned
from CONS here. You people provide a wealth of knowledge.
Not deep, issue-based political discourse, is it?
It can be entertaining if you don't take it seriously though.
My vote is based on issues, -include character.nm
nm
Alaskans do get a check based on oil profit taxes that are...sm,
charged by the Alaskan government. That is why the poor Alaskans support her and agree to the rape of their land. A few thousand dollars is a lot of money to them.
I was not talking about tithes...I am taking about faith-based...
organizations independent of a particular church. One I support is Feed the Children. Generally tithes are used to pay the bills of the church.
Full coverage based on income for people whose...sm
employers do not offer insurance.
sam, weak argument based on semantics, that reporter's
implication was all too clear, and just another stupid accusation in order to mislead yet more uneducated, misinformed voters.
employer based-programs subsidize insurance...
not just make it available--and therein lies my problem.
My confidence in Obama is based on his brilliant intellect,
his ability to bring people together, his leadership capacity, his calm demeanor, his form of thinking, the multi-tasking problem-solving skills he has demonstrated, his world view, his plans and policies, his voting record, his biography, his focus on the middle class, his accomplishments, his instincts (especially when assessing that the country was "ready" to elect a black president), his confidence, his judgment, his desire to seek a broad-based, wide variety of opinions, his decisiveness, his vision, his orientation toward the future, his multicultural global outlook, his global appeal, his compassion, his family orientation and, above all, his love for his country. He will make an extraordinary leader for America and we are lucky and blessed to have him.
Feminists were just as silent about the disgusting gender-based
When that happened, as far as I was concerned the feminists lost any moral authority they might have ever had and revealed themselves not to be a feminist movement, but an arm of the liberal movement.
Wow, once again jumping to conclusions based on Faux Noise sm
inaccurate reporting by jumping on a story strictly for sensationalism. Mr. Latham has since been reinstated his job. It all turned out to be a misunderstanding by argumentative student that took something that Mr. Latham said, twisted it, and reported it to the principal. Once the misunderstanding was cleared up after all parties told their stories, Mr. Latham has his job back. Just another example of those ambulance chasers at Fox stirring the pot for their own hateful agenda. Maybe those of you on here that take everything they say as gospel woulld be wise to wait before you report something as fact!!
They don't know either. They just spew this stuff out. It's rarely based in reality or fact.
x
There is a difference between courts agreeing and denying based on standing...
And most of Fox is based on this type of behavior....Fox a News Station? What a circus!.....nm
nm
The vast majority of mass media is liberal based.......
you have to ask yourself WHY does one need to pass a law for diversity in media ownership. ANY American in this country is allowed to own/manage media without bias on race, gender, or anything else. You start opening our American media up to foreign countries (which is what this entire law is about and you have to understand why) and you have started opening a flood gate of foreign interpretation as to what they consider "free" speech. Foreign intervention into our media is a definite no-no. Why do you feel foreigners need to run our media. They are already involved enough but we should never allow our media to run by foreign entitites.....common sense should dictate why.
In case you don't get the picture, you want a communist China company to run your local TV station? What exactly do you think would happen then?
GET A CLUE!!!!
The truth, the whole truth and nothing but...It's probably the biggest...sm
reason why I am voting democrat...they seem more honest than the the republicans and it looks like people are starting to get smart and *bailin' Palin*... We don't need to keep hearing her *greatest hits" version of her acceptance speech over and over and McSame's POW story...that was then, this is now...we need REAL change and we need it NOW. I don't need someone to push the red button, I need someone to fix the economy!
Truth? The truth is she is nuts!
nm
Harriet Miers - Bush's newest *faith-based initiative*
At first I thought this was just an example of cronyism, considering that Bush paid Miers $19,000 in 1998 to assist in his National Guard AWOL debacle/scandal.
But after painfully watching his press conference this morning, I realized he was speaking in code about the fact that she isn't going to change her views on abortion. It's no secret she's pro-life. It's also no secret that so-called pro-lifers in the past have resorted to murdering abortion doctors in an attempt to stop abortion.
They will stop at nothing.
Including a faith-based Supreme Court Justice.
Kiss America GOODBYE.
P.S. to gt: Hi! 
|
