Atrocious to Smear a Private Citizen
Find a Conversation
Atrocious to Smear a Private Citizen
| Thu, 10-16-2008 - 4:22pm |
I think it is atrocious for the press to try to smear a private citizen who merely used his first amendment rights to question a candidate! He didn't ask for all this attention, and he has not stated who he will be voting for, but since John McCain received some points in the debate last night about an exchange "Joe the Plumber" had with Barack Obama the press is out to destroy this man. Good Grief! The man is a plumber! An average citizen. Now the left wing is trying to vilify him like he's George Bush! How HORRIBLE! And the extremists on the left seem to be following in lock step. No compassion for an ordinary man UNLESS he shares their socialist viewpoint. This is about as dirty as it gets!

Pages
Where do you find this stuff?
When I tire of scrolling, I invoke my handy ignore command.
http://messageboards.ivillage.com/iv-elpoliticsto/?msg=17542.345
(I see you didn't click on the link before, here it is again.)
Edited 10/18/2008 3:46 pm ET by chillychillychilly
Oh, just your average Gazoogle searches. Correcting the mendacity and falsehoods of wingnuttia has become sort of a hobby of mine.
I also have access to one somewhat advanced research tool.
LOL!
sure I can and with the smallest writing possible...
Obama 08
Of course, perhaps you don't know the meaning of "non-binding" - or you didn't read it closely enough.
And if you read the last paragraph, looks like the McCain campaign doesn't pay attention to what factcheck says, which is not surprising.
Obama has NOT voted against tax cuts for the middle class.
- Obama's vote (for a non-binding budget bill) does not change the fact that his own tax plan would provide a tax cut of $502 for a non-married taxpayer earning $35,000.
Update, July 11: After this article was posted the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee aired a radio ad in two states repeating the bogus $32,000 figure. The campaign also sent an e-mail to reporters defending it, but failing to note that it refers to taxable income and not total income.Pages