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

Smears are smears

Posted By: gourdpainter on 2008-10-30
In Reply to: Regardig your #2....it never ceases to amaze me...sm - sm

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



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

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
Observations based in truth are not smears
Go gourdpainter.
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



Posted by Greg Sargent on June 20, 2006 09:50 AM |

© Copyright 2001-09 MTStars.com All Rights Reserved