More lies from the loser.
As everyone who has been paying the slightest attention to this election knows, Obama will not tax any small business with less than $250,000 in profits–the category into which something like 95% of all small businesses belong. In addition, he will provide tax credits for businesses providing health insurance to their employees, among other tax credits.
Besides, all you have to do is to look at the current economic situation to know which party has been devastating for small businesses. Give me ONE example of a significant departure from Bush’s disastrous economic policies in McCain’s plans. You can’t, because there isn’t one. Not one.

Dude, haven’t you been reading this blog? Its the media’s fault! Everything the Republicans did wrong is the result of the secret leftist-MSM cabal against Great Leader Bush!
Seriously, why does Beliefnet waste its time with this drivel?

It depends where the ads are being played. Here in Minnesota, McCain’s campaign has basically stopped running ads because Obama is leading so much here that there’s no point. I am sure when you go to a Red-state like Texas or Utah, you won’t find as many Obama ads.
It has nothing to do with a conspiracy to elect Barack Obama.

what do you call someone who spreads lies? yeah, michele, that’s you.

After the election Beliefnet will have to change this blogs name to “Reformed Chick B****ing.” This will be a 24/7 anti-Obama cesspool.
What am I saying…that’s all that it is right now.

“Obama plans to spend trillions of dollars, raise taxes and stick it to small businesses (yes he does and they know it — higher taxes and he’ll force them to provide health care)”
Isn’t being false witness a sin in the Reformed faith, Michele?

Meant to type “bearing false witness”, but my sticky old keyboard made an appropriate freudian slip in this case, it seems.

Many people call differing opinions “differing opinions”, not “lies” or “false witness”.

A lie is a lie, MzEllen. Like yours about Obama and the “Born Alive” bill.

What is a lie about it?
IF you are interested in truth, read this
Does the bill provide for medical attention for babies born as a result of a botched abortion or “induced labor” abortion or “live birth” abortion? Yes.
Did Obama vote against even allowing the bill to go the floor of the Senate for a vote? Yes, Obama voted against bringing the bill to the floor for a vote.
Did Obama oppose the bill? Yes, although he took the abortion-provider’s (Planned Parenthood) advice and voted “present”.
Where is the lie?

Oh…before you send me to “factcheck.org” – who is it owned by? Annenberg…ring a bell?

MzEllen, the irony is that YOU are exploiting the issue of abortion to repel people into ignorance. You are shameless.
Why did Obama vote present on SB1093? It might help to take a look at his explanation. I know it’s hard for some of you to understand, but the bill kinda sought to underhandedly distort the Constitution and essentially make abortions illegal. But don’t let that stop you from your continuous lying.
=========
“Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest … that this is probably notgoing to survive constitutional scrutiny. …
“Whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — a child, a nine-month-old — child that was delivered to term.
“That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.”
=========
And your laughable implication that Factcheck, a non-partisan organization founded by a Republican and former close friend of Ronald Reagan, is not a reliable source? Care to refute a single assertion on the site?

“Oh…before you send me to “factcheck.org” – who is it owned by? Annenberg…ring a bell?”
You mean Walter Annenberg? The fellow who hosted a New Year’s eve party that Ronald and Nancy Reagan attended annually? The same Walter Annenberg who was a loud voice supporting the Vietnam War and opposing Communism? The same Walter Annenberg who received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Ronald Reagan? The same Walter Annenberg who introduced Ronald Reagan to Margaret Thatcher?
Yeah…his name rings a bell. What of it?

I lost confidence in “factcheck” when I read their appraisal of Obama’s stance on gun control and the NRA – and see that they donate money to the Brady Center, whom I believe has a goal of undermining the Second Amendment.
James, we disagree on what Obama’s words MEAN.
He is saying that even though a child has completely left his or her mother’s body, he or she can no longer be a danger to his or her mother’s health, he or she is breathing, he or she has a heartbeat, he or she has voluntary movement – he or she is not accorded “basic human rights”.
Obama refers to a born-alive baby as a “pre-viable fetus” Here’s the thing…once he or she is born, he or she is no longer a “fetus”. He or she is a “infant”.
For you, this appears to mean little. For me, it means that a child (no matter what stage of pregnancy) whose mother wants to terminate the pregnancy would be at risk for being born alive as a result of an “induce labor” abortion or botched abortion and being allowed to die alone in a dirty laundry room – without even the mandate to give paliative care.
Obama voted “present” on even mandating a “cold drink of water” for this “least of these”.
Because of health issues, I terminated a pregnancy at 31 1/2 weeks. The result of that terminated pregnancy is now 21 years old. His name is Tom and he’s going to be a teacher.

Why do you people constantly distort the truth. He’ll raise taxes on the

“Why do you people constantly distort the truth. He’ll raise taxes on the…”
… wealthiest 5% of Americans, bringing the tax percentage from 36% to 39% on those making over $250,000 a year. (A return to the same rate under Bill Clinton, back when our economy was robust, the dollar was strong, the national debt was reduced, and we actually had budget surpluses.)
Obama will also provide 95% of the American population and 95% of small businesses with a tax cut — a CUT for the working Joes and Janes who make less than $200,000. Including Joe The Plumber, and very likely every single person who has ever visited this sleazy blog.
And NO, Michele, partisan pawn, small businesses are exempt from any fine for not providing health care. It’s hardly “forced” on large employers either, who are asked to “offer meaningful coverage or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees” or contribute to a fund that would help people who can’t afford health care. Be honest.
I too am amazed at all the distortions of truth. Like the unbelievable idea that $250,000, or $200,000, or heck, EVEN $150,000, is anything but rich. Or that people making less than 1/4 of that defend the idea. Or that McCain would stand to get a $300,000 tax break if his proposals were enacted, while middle class Americans would save only $319. Or this even more amazing flip-flop quote from John McCain, who sold his soul to the Republicans and is now controlling an army of pawns for the wealthy:
John McCain of 2000: “Wealthy people can afford more … the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do. … When you are, reach a certain level of comfort, there is nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.” John McCain, who now wears $500 shoes, has 7 houses, and comes from one of the richest families in his state.
P.S. Apologies to Naida if you were trying to say the same thing.

I’m also extremely amused that John McCain’s face is shown while the subtitle “working Joe” flashes onscreen in this ad. I wasn’t aware that the average Joe is worth over $100 million and rides around in a private jet with multiple vacation homes at his disposal.
I kind of thought the average American Joe might be more like Obama, a mixed race man who was raised by a single mother on food stamps and brought himself up by his own boot straps to become the virtual embodiment of the American Dream. Odd.

I just want to say something. When people like MzEllen imply that Obama is “for” refusing medical attention to fetuses that survived abortion procedures (an incredibly rare occurrence, by the way), you are deliberating distorting facts to gross people out, and it’s completely misleading. NOBODY, including Obama, is “PRO” torture of a surviving fetus. YOU KNOW THIS, but you just want to twist things around to make Obama look evil. The bill in question was meant to illegalize women’s rights while masquerading as a mere procedural alteration. Nonsense.
This is the kind of slime that makes it impossible to discuss complex issues with many right wingers. You toss out crude one-liners that are literally true but paint a starkly incomplete picture. This is the same underhanded tactic used every time: You pinpoint a single black & white idea that is universally agreeable (medical attention for surviving fetuses, funding troops), then you sneak in a whole host of agendas that are NOT universally agreeable (illegalizing abortion, removal of withdrawal timetables), then you force your opponents to say “yay” or “nay” to the whole shebang without allowing any context or reference or nuance.
Seriously, how do you live with yourselves with this unrelenting dishonesty? I don’t stoop to scream “unpatriotic” when McCain votes against HR 1591, a troop funding bill, because I honestly understand that he disagreed with the timetable. So if you want to maintain any respect, try battling honestly. We can disagree without employing fallacies and untruths.

“I lost confidence in “factcheck” when I read their appraisal of Obama’s stance on gun control and the NRA – and see that they donate money to the Brady Center, whom I believe has a goal of undermining the Second Amendment.”
Does it also trouble you that John McCain has received financial contributions from the Bonanno crime family? Or that his wife’s fortune came from mob connections? Does it trouble you that McCain consorts with a confessed and convicted terrorist who has admitted to planning to firebomb American organizations?
http://www.bluebloggin.com/2008/10/05/john-mccains-dear-friend-american-terrorist-g-gordon-liddy/
Does any of this trouble you, MzEllen, or are you OK with a mob-connected, terrorist supporting President in the White House as long as he is Republican?

Yeah, it does bother me. But the voting record of McCain shows a track record of leadership that I believe will be better for this country.
Becca, here’s the thing. On abortion, Obama doesn’t say “nay” to anything.
If the “facts” (literal truth) bothers you, try looking at child that was aborted late in the pregnancy.
If “literal truth” bothers you, what “unliteral untruth” would you prefer?

Hey, Gillian, I still would like to know if you have sold all that you own and given it to the poor?
Do you have one standard for one set of people and another for yourself?

MzEllen, you’ve got to stop this cross-posting. You’re almost as erratic as John McCain.
(OK, that was a low blow…)

Hey Gillian, I gather that you have not sold all that you own and given it to the poor, having one standard for you and another for somebody else.

MzEllen, you’ve got to stop this cross-posting.
I think that it would be nice if the blog owner were to be able to decide what posters have “got to” do, instead of you deciding what is best for everybody – especially since you appear to have a habit of having one standard for you and another for somebody else.

“Yeah, it does bother me. But the voting record of McCain shows a track record of leadership that I believe will be better for this country.”
Which voting record is that, MzEllen? Is it the votes that he cast against Bush’s tax cut proposals back in 2001 and 2002? Is it the votes that he cast in support of Native American casinos (that were/are backed by the Bonanno family money)? Is it his numerous votes against funding medical and psychological care for veterans after they return home from defending our nation?
Which part of McCain’s voting record do you feel would be better for our nation?
And I accept that you are more comfortable with a President who receives financial support from an active Mafia family than you are with one who is friends with someone who bombed some buildings and murdered some people nearly 40 years ago. I don’t understand the position and I consider it unwise, but so be it.

Wow, touchy, MzEllen… And on the one post where I was being lighthearted. Heh. You’ve got to stop being so sensitive (once you figure out the threaded comments system).
“…you appear to have a habit of having one standard for you and another for somebody else.”
I guess if you just say something, it must be true? Not surprising that you didn’t respond to my response that you requested — under the corresponding topic.
Here’s the thing:
I support Obama’s tax increases as a small business owner. I would pay more myself if I were in his targeted bracket, but coincidentally I’m not. I make about 1/3 of the minimum salary.
Whereas you people masquerade as followers of Christ, but then you turn around to support a warmongering candidate who wants to make wealthy people wealthier and tell the poor to “eat cake”. I seem to remember a Biblical passage relating to camels and needle eyes…
So who’s the hypocrite? That’s the shorthand term for someone who doesn’t hold himself to his professed standards. Methinks you are living a lie.

Just an addendum in case you don’t read my original reply:
I am not religious. I am a 99.99% agnostic who likes to point out hypocrisy in religion. I don’t hold myself to the teaching of Christ because I am not a Christian.
And I have yet to hear a credible reason why you can cherry-pick the Bible to believe only what suits you. Seems to me that kind of negates the validity of the whole thing?

So who’s the hypocrite?
Those with professed standards.
But, just so you know, God’s standards are the same for everybody. You can read Zephaniah 2 if you like.

And I have yet to hear a credible reason why you can cherry-pick the Bible to believe only what suits you. Seems to me that kind of negates the validity of the whole thing?
We don’t cherry pick – we see the whole counsel of Scripture.. We see poor and we give to the poor. You see poor and you think raise taxes.

We don’t cherry pick
Naw, I have this objection too. I mean, does Acts 15:20, 29 suggest Christians ought to be vegetarians or keep kosher?
We all have what the evangelical F. F. Bruce called a “canon within a canon.” I don’t see how denying it helps.

“You see poor and you think raise taxes.”
you presume to know a lot, but you have no idea what we think. let me fill you in (with what i think, anyway).
personally, i was poor at one time, teetering on the brink of homelessness. it’s not something that i take lightly. when i see poor, i feel deep empathy. and yes, i give. i give anonymously (leaving grocery shopping cards and calling cards in their mailboxes, passing on clothes and shoes that my kids outgrew months and years ago to families we know, giving to canned food drives, monetary donations to charitable organizations among other things). but that’s not enough. if it were, we wouldn’t have such growth of poverty today. i don’t see taxes as a way to help the poor, with the obvious exceptions of safety nets like medicare, food assistance, unemployment insurance compensation, and social security.
maybe others might chime in on what they think when they see poor.

We see poor and we give to the poor.
I’ll say again, Capra’s Meet John Doe models the Christian / moral response to poverty perfectly:
“Well, sir, about a dozen families got together and gave Grubbel a job watering their lawns. Isn’t that wonderful? And then we found jobs for six other people and they’ve all gone off relief!” – Sourpuss

“We see poor and we give to the poor.”
When you see something that is working to keep that person impoverished, do you resist, or do you simply accept that the “poor will always be with you?”
For example, when you see a corporation bringing in illegal workers from another country in an effort to keep from paying an honest day’s wages to their workers, do you believe that the corporation should be stopped from doing that? Or do you believe that we should simply take the illegal workers back home and do nothing to the corporation that brought them here?
I’m thinking specifically of a raid a few months ago in Postville, Iowa, not all that far from where I live and work. So far we have seen a lot of concerned raised about removing the illegal workers, but little call for any action against the company that knowingly hired them.
I know you may not be familiar with the incident, but in general who should bear more punishment in the matter; an employer who recruits illegal workers to keep local wages depressed, or a worker who responds to such recruitment and moves his family here in hopes of improving their lot?