Wingnuts Hoot at Obama Speech, But 91% of Americans Approve

Idiots call Obama an idiot
Politics • Views: 25,496

Apparently, some people have nothing better to do: ‘My Message is Simple’: Obama’s SOTU Written at 8th Grade Level for Third Straight Year.

For the third consecutive State of the Union Address, Barack Obama spoke in clear, plain terms.

And for the third straight Address, the President’s speech was written at an eighth-grade level.

In Obama’s own words: “My message is simple.”

But was it too simplistic?

A Smart Politics study of the 70 orally delivered State of the Union Addresses since 1934 finds the text of Obama’s 2012 speech to have tallied the third lowest score on the Flesch-Kincaid readability test, at an 8.4 grade level.

Of course, you already know what an article like this will provoke from the right wing idiot blogs (which are usually written at a second-grade level): raving and jeering. For example…

Weasel Zippers - Master Orator Barack Obama’s State Of The Union Speech Registers At An 8th Grade Reading Level…

But … but … but … he’s the smartest president evah!

The wingnuts may hoot and gibber, but a CBS News poll shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans approved of Obama’s speech: Poll: High Marks for Obama’s State of the Union Speech.

An overwhelming majority of Americans approved of the overall message in President Obama’s State of the Union speech on Tuesday night, according to a CBS News poll of speech watchers.

According to the poll, which was conducted online by Knowledge Networks immediately after the president’s address, 91 percent of those who watched the speech approved of the proposals Mr. Obama put forth during his remarks. Only nine percent disapproved.

UPDATE at 1/25/12 2:45:34 pm

Correction: although it’s been linked all over the blogosphere today, the poll in this post was actually from last year. Apologies for missing that; I’ll update if new poll results become available.

Jump to bottom

382 comments
1 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:34:49am

Daaamn. That man really hit some bulls-eyes last night. If he can get Congress to get even a tenth of that done, he may well be one of our most successful - and popular - Presidents ever.

2 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:35:38am

Yeah, and if it was an academic-like speech, they would accuse him of being an out-of-touch elitist intellectual.

:-/

3 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:36:41am

Loved the speech last night. After all the bs the republicans have said, he got up there and knocked down every one of their arguements. It was classic Obama.

4 Vicious Babushka  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:36:56am

re: #2 Sergey Romanov

Yeah, and if it was an academic-like speech, they would accuse him of being an out-of-touch elitist intellectual.

:-/

THIS.

5 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:37:05am

re: #2 Sergey Romanov

Yeah, and if it was an academic-like speech, they would accuse him of being an out-of-touch elitist intellectual.

:-/

This is why it’s not worth trying to appease wingnuts. They will hate you no matter what you do. The best thing you can do is exactly what the President did: GAZE.

6 Vicious Babushka  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:37:47am

re: #5 thedopefishlives

This is why it’s not worth trying to appease wingnuts. They will hate you no matter what you do. The best thing you can do is exactly what the President did: GAZE.

He didn’t GAZE them, he kicked them in the balls.

7 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:38:53am

re: #6 Alouette

He didn’t GAZE them, he kicked them in the balls.

Heh, this is true.

8 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:39:06am

That’s impressive.

I really think his positive note is important. The GOP has begun hating on America. Hating on multiculturalism is hating on America. Hating on immigrants is hating on America. Hating on people who are too poor to pay significant federal taxes is hating on America.

9 Political Atheist  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:39:54am

My only quibble is the Buffet rule thing. Sound policy is not based on very recent views of one uber rich guy (arguably the brightest mind in the biz) and his secretary.

Sound bite economics are not sound economics.

All else I was happy to hear.

10 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:41:20am

[Link: articles.cnn.com…]

There is a big question that hangs over this presidential campaign: Will a majority of voters give their support to the presidential candidate who is the intellectual in the contest?

Barack Obama has all the credentials of the famous “pointy-headed” intellectuals in the Democratic Party who have traditionally gone down to defeat.

He has degrees from Columbia University and Harvard Law School, he taught at the University of Chicago, and, yes, he even wrote his own books. In speeches and debates, he has bombarded voters with detailed arguments about public policy. When his character is attacked, his instinct is to respond with facts and figures.

[…]

Since World War II, Republicans have been very successful at making Democrats who appear too intellectual the subject of derision, symbols of how liberals are out of touch with average Americans and lack the passion needed for leadership.

Guess the year.

11 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:41:25am

re: #8 Obdicut

That’s impressive.

I really think his positive note is important. The GOP has begun hating on America.

This.

They’ve been the ones going around saying everything sucks which is why it was nice to hear how things are, in general, improving.

12 rwmofo  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:42:19am

It makes sense that the President has to dumb his message down to appeal to the low-information voters which are the core of his constituency.

Seems like “fairness” was mentioned last night.

As George Bernard Shaw so eloquently put it: “Any government that robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul.”

For the government to put a dollar into the private sector—i.e., government spending—it has to take it from the private sector first. This is left-wing logic: Their radical redistribution policies (robbing “the rich” so they can pay off their friends, unions, etc) will make the economy grow.

…and there are actually people gullible enough to believe that works.

13 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:42:30am

re: #10 Sergey Romanov

oh I remember that whole arguement from 2008.

14 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:42:34am

re: #11 Dreggas

This.

They’ve been the ones going around saying everything sucks which is why it was nice to hear how things are, in general, improving.

Not only nice to hear, but it’s the truth, too. Republicans can hate on America all they want, but we have been busy rebuilding while they’re whining and hand-wringing.

15 jamesfirecat  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:43:35am

re: #9 Rightwingconspirator

My only quibble is the Buffet rule thing. Sound policy is not based on very recent views of one uber rich guy (arguably the brightest mind in the biz) and his secretary.

Sound bite economics is not sound economics.

All else I was happy to hear.

Does the fact that Mitt Romney makes more in ONE DAY than three people working at minimum wage would in a YEAR and pays less than 15% tax on that money put the argument in less soundbytey terms?

16 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:43:43am

re: #12 rwmofo

yes, because trickle down economics has worked so well for the past 30 years…

17 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:43:45am

re: #12 rwmofo

It makes sense that the President has to dumb his message down to appeal to the low-information voters which are the core of his constituency.

How do you explain the broader appeal of the speech?

As George Bernard Shaw so eloquently put it: “Any government that robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul.”

Eloquently proved by the lobbying organizations that allow, for example, polluters to steal from the public health, yes.


The rest of your stuff is just basic derpy trolling.

18 Lidane  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:44:34am

re: #12 rwmofo

Shorter you: “Herp derp. Derp. Herpity derp.”

Try harder next time.

19 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:45:51am

Right-wing motherfucker wrote:

It makes sense that the President has to dumb his message down to appeal to the low-information voters which are the core of his constituency.

So, rw motherfucker, are you saying you’re the core of Obama’s constituency?

20 Tigger2005  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:46:53am

He had to speak at a level that even Republicans could understand.

(And apparently it worked!)

21 Lidane  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:47:43am

re: #16 Dreggas

yes, because trickle down economics has worked so well for the past 30 years…

But Supply Side Jesus is on our side! Of course it will work!

22 Buck  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:47:55am

It is the lack of details. Will he actually send a bill to Congress that says that anyone who makes a million dollars or more gets NO tax deductions? That is what it sounded like to me.

However he gets to have it both ways. He gets to say it, but never really act on it.

Washington should stop subsidizing millionaires. In fact, if you’re earning a million dollars a year, you shouldn’t get special tax subsidies or deductions.

Cheer, Cheer Cheer…. eat the rich! Make the Rich pay! Yaaaa!

And then nothing. It will never happen. Not because Republicans wont vote for it. It will be because no one will write a bill that says everyone who earns a million dollars a year (or more) doesn’t get tax deductions.

His whole speech was filled with that exact sort of pie in the sky. “Send me a bill and I will sign it tomorrow”! Sound good, but will he get the bill written? Will he actually fill in the details on how he is going to force every student to stay in school until they are 18? The idea sounds good, BUT the details are missing. Punish the offenders? How? Chain them to their desks? Lock them in the school? Put them in jail?

Ya…. I thought so. More pie in the sky.

23 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:47:58am

re: #12 rwmofo

It makes sense that the President has to dumb his message down to appeal to the low-information voters which are the core of his constituency.

No, he had to dumb it down enough so that people like you could actually comprehend what he was talking about. Clearly it worked, since I don’t see you even attempting to misunderstand his outlined policies.

24 jamesfirecat  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:48:17am

re: #12 rwmofo

It makes sense that the President has to dumb his message down to appeal to the low-information voters which are the core of his constituency.

Seems like “fairness” was mentioned last night.

As George Bernard Shaw so eloquently put it: “Any government that robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul.”

For the government to put a dollar into the private sector—i.e., government spending—it has to take it from the private sector first. This is left-wing logic: Their radical redistribution policies (robbing “the rich” so they can pay off their friends, unions, etc) will make the economy grow.

…and there are actually people gullible enough to believe that works.

People are considered “rich” because they have more money than they spend.

people are considered “poor” because they don’t have enough money to spend on the things they need. (Post edited to better reflect my intended point)

The economy grows as more people spend money right?

So ignoring the fairness of it, how can taking (reasonable amounts) of money from rich people and giving it to poor people not make the economy grow?

25 Vicious Babushka  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:48:30am

re: #9 Rightwingconspirator

My only quibble is the Buffet rule thing. Sound policy is not based on very recent views of one uber rich guy (arguably the brightest mind in the biz) and his secretary.

Sound bite economics are not sound economics.

All else I was happy to hear.

You think that Warren Buffet’s secretary is the only low-paid worker in the entire USA who pays tax at a higher rate than her boss?

26 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:49:07am

re: #22 Buck

The view from the 9%.

27 Lidane  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:49:23am

re: #22 Buck

LOL you. Bitter wingnut is bitter.

28 jamesfirecat  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:49:25am

re: #22 Buck

It is the lack of details. Will he actually send a bill to Congress that says that anyone who makes a million dollars or more gets NO tax deductions? That is what it sounded like to me.

However he gets to have it both ways. He gets to say it, but never really act on it.

Cheer, Cheer Cheer… eat the rich! Make the Rich pay! Yaaa!

And then nothing. It will never happen. Not because Republicans wont vote for it. It will be because no one will write a bill that says everyone who earns a million dollars a year (or more) doesn’t get tax deductions.

His whole speech was filled with that exact sort of pie in the sky. “Send me a bill and I will sign it tomorrow”! Sound good, but will he get the bill written? Will he actually fill in the details on how he is going to force every student to stay in school until they are 18? The idea sounds good, BUT the details are missing. Punish the offenders? How? Chain them to their desks? Lock them in the school? Put them in jail?

Ya… I thought so. More pie in the sky.

I think you’ve got this backwards Buck, its not the President’s job to send bills to congress, it’s congress’ job to send bills to him to either sign into laws or veto.

29 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:49:27am

re: #22 Buck

Buck, I don’t know where you were during your high school civics classes, but it is not the President’s job to write legislation.

30 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:49:49am

re: #24 jamesfirecat

People are considered “rich” because they have more money than they spend.

people are considered “poor” because they don’t have enough money to spend on the things they want.

Those are terrible, terrible definitions.

Lots of people spend ten million but don’t get all the things they want. They’re not poor.

31 Vicious Babushka  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:49:59am

re: #24 jamesfirecat

People are considered “rich” because they have more money than they spend.

people are considered “poor” because they don’t have enough money to spend on the things they want NEED.

ftfy.

32 Charles Johnson  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:50:28am

Oooh. Wingnuts no like my post. Must … hate … Obama …

33 jamesfirecat  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:51:07am

re: #31 Alouette

ftfy.

You are correct sir. (Just edited original post)

34 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:51:19am

re: #32 Charles

Oooh. Wingnuts no like my post. Must … hate … Obama …

The stupid is strong out there today. Maybe that’s because Obama actually spoke in terms they could understand.

35 Political Atheist  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:51:35am

re: #15 jamesfirecat

Does the fact that Mitt Romney makes more in ONE DAY than three people working at minimum wage would in a YEAR and pays less than 15% tax on that money put the argument in less sound tey terms?

The facts of Mitt Romney in particular are irrelevant to national policy. That’s the election year hyperbole that should be kept out of economic policy. “Fair” is hopelessly subjective. Unearned income should not be taxed with the same chart as salaries. Not if you expect any foreign investment anyway.

Evaluate Mitt’s taxes for electability. Not national policy. Not that you need to bother everyone’s mind is made up already right? So much of this is moot in terms of who to vote for. Nice topic, but not gonna make a diff for us in November.

36 Buck  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:52:30am

re: #29 thedopefishlives

Buck, I don’t know where you were during your high school civics classes, but it is not the President’s job to write legislation.

I actually said “will he get the bill written”. However… how nice an excuse.

The President can (and does) work with Congress to get a bill written.

37 Lidane  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:52:35am

re: #34 thedopefishlives

The stupid is strong out there today. Maybe that’s because Obama actually spoke in terms they could understand.

Heh.

38 bulldurham  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:52:40am

Nitpicking, but that’s 91% of people who watched the speech. I assume there’s some selection bias there…

39 JeffM70  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:53:16am

Evidently Obama should have had the speech written at a first-grade level so the wing-nuts could understand it.

40 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:53:29am

BTW, it’s no secret that the gist of a general political speech that wants to be successful will be: for all the good things; against all the bad things. It’s part of the show.

41 Lidane  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:54:03am

re: #36 Buck

Because the GOP majority in the House has been so willing to work with this President. Really.

42 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:54:48am

re: #40 Sergey Romanov

It’s more about what that person considers good, what they consider bad. What their hope for the future is, and what their analysis of the situation is.

Aside from the neglect of AGW— which is of ultimate importance— Obama’s speech was very respectable in terms of those values.

43 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:54:59am

re: #36 Buck

I actually said “will he get the bill written”. However… how nice an excuse.

The President can (and does) work with Congress to get a bill written.

He can suggest legislation, but nobody in Congress has to actually listen to him if they don’t want to. It’s all on the legislature to “get the bill written”. The fact that there are some supporters that will pretty much always work with him to get legislation written and presented for debate is irrelevant. It is not Obama’s job to write all these bills.

Try again next time.

44 Lidane  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:55:01am

re: #39 JeffM70

Evidently Obama should have had the speech written at a first-grade level so the wing-nuts could understand it.

ZOMG! He’s still patronizing us! Pointy-headed intellectual!

///

45 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:55:18am

re: #38 bulldurham

Nitpicking, but that’s 91% of people who watched the speech. I assume there’s some selection bias there…

True. But you can’t get a poll on people who didn’t watch the speech.

46 jamesfirecat  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:56:14am

re: #36 Buck

I actually said “will he get the bill written”. However… how nice an excuse.

The President can (and does) work with Congress to get a bill written.

Examples?

47 Buck  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:56:15am

re: #41 Lidane

Because the GOP majority in the House has been so willing to work with this President. Really.

OK, have the Democrats PROVE IT. Have the Senate vote on a bill that says everyone who earns more than 1 million dollars does not get deductions.

They won’t. It will never happen.

48 Charles Johnson  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:56:35am

re: #38 bulldurham

Nitpicking, but that’s 91% of people who watched the speech. I assume there’s some selection bias there…

Well, uh, it is a poll on approval of the speech. How would it make sense to include people who didn’t watch it?

49 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:57:15am

re: #45 Obdicut

True. But you can’t get a poll on people who didn’t watch the speech.

It’s not Charles’ framing of this either, but CBS’:

An overwhelming majority of Americans approved of the overall message in President Obama’s State of the Union speech on Tuesday night, according to a CBS News poll of speech watchers.

However, I gotta agree with the nitpicking. It’s probably not 91% of “Americans”.

50 lawhawk  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:57:24am

The SOTU is geared for a wide audience, not an academic conference or a policy pronouncement before a specific audience like say - a bunch of doctors or a defense department confab.

Thus, the speech is written to be understood by the audience. To do so, the speech has to be written so that anyone with a high school education would understand.

Flesch Kinkaid is one such readability test. By that measure (and that particular test link):
Result
Method used: Flesch-Kincaid (English).
Flesch-Kincaid Grade level: 10.
Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score: 49.

By comparison, Daniels response:
Method used: Flesch-Kincaid (English).
Flesch-Kincaid Grade level: 14.
Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score: 37.

Yet, despite the college level speech, conservatives panned Daniels response - noting it wasn’t holding to conservative values (as per Vinguere) such as they are.

It’s not only the readability - but the content, and that’s where the President got the message across. That’s what counts. Can he get the message across and can he deliver on his promises. That’s what voters will decide in November - did they like the message, and has he delivered on promises made previously.

Right now, I’d say that he’s delivered. He got a health care package done (which the GOP is trying to undo). He killed OBL (which the GOP would rather ignore). He’s bringing troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq (though in the latter case, as per a deadline set by the Bush Administration but which was not extended after negotiations with the Iraqi government failed to immunize US forces from liability and prosecution in Iraqi justice system). On foreign policy, Obama’s gotten more things right than wrong (one could argue that he’s made missteps wrt Syria and didn’t come out forcefully enough against the Arab regimes’ crackdowns in places like Bahrain). He didn’t shut down Gitmo as per a 2008 campaign promise, but that hurts him among his liberal base - not the GOP.

On financial reform, it’s a somewhat mixed bag and an open question whether the reforms will be able to prevent a future meltdown. However, the real estate market is still a mess and the response to homeowners has been underwhelming - even by the administration’s own admissions.

Still, the GOP isn’t offering much in the way of an alternative other than the we’re not Obama line.

51 Charles Johnson  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:57:28am

re: #47 Buck

OK, have the Democrats PROVE IT. Have the Senate vote on a bill that says everyone who earns more than 1 million dollars does not get deductions.

What are you talking about? Who ever suggested that?

52 jamesfirecat  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:57:30am

re: #47 Buck

OK, have the Democrats PROVE IT. Have the Senate vote on a bill that says everyone who earns more than 1 million dollars does not get deductions.

They won’t. It will never happen.

Yeah, because before the senate can vote on a bill it has to pass the house first doesn’t it? (The Republican controlled house at the moment)

53 jamesfirecat  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:58:16am

re: #48 Charles

Well, uh, it is a poll on approval of the speech. How would it make sense to include people who didn’t watch it?

///What do you mean Charles? Don’t you know how many proud members of the GOP there are out there who have loud strong opinions on things they don’t need to actually observe in order to comment on them?

54 Lidane  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:58:17am

re: #47 Buck

Hahahaha! Desperate troll is desperate. You really have nothing to contribute to this discussion, do you?

55 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:58:20am

re: #49 Sergey Romanov

It’s not Charles’ framing of this either, but CBS’:

However, I gotta agree with the nitpicking. It’s probably not 91% of “Americans”.

Why the quotation marks? What is the difference between citizens of the United States of America and “Americans?”

56 Lidane  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:58:52am

re: #51 Charles

What are you talking about? Who ever suggested that?

Don’t mind Buck. He’s in Wingnut Reality again.

57 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:59:27am

re: #55 EmmmieG

Why the quotation marks? What is the difference between citizens of the United States of America and “Americans?”

Um? “Americans” is quote from the CBS item. It’s not 91% of Americans who agree with the speech, it’s 91% of those who watched the speech.

58 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:59:37am

re: #55 EmmmieG

Why the quotation marks? What is the difference between citizens of the United States of America and “Americans?”

I think he means it’s “Americans who watched the SOTU”, rather than “Americans in general”.

59 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:59:42am

re: #55 EmmmieG

Why the quotation marks? What is the difference between citizens of the United States of America and “Americans?”

Saying “All Americans” as opposed to “Americans who watched the SOTU speech”. There could be a distinction there due to selection bias, even though it is impossible to prevent because you can’t exactly poll people who didn’t watch.

60 Buck  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 9:59:46am

re: #46 jamesfirecat

Examples?

President Barack Obama has sent a new job bill through to Congress, proposing to slash $467bn worth of tax breaks currently enjoyed by the richest American individuals and companies.

Read more - [Link: w.po.st…]

61 Vicious Babushka  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:00:13am

re: #29 thedopefishlives

Buck, I don’t know where you were during your high school civics classes, but it is not the President’s job to write legislation.

I think he was in Canada, U.S. civics lessons wouldn’t apply there.

62 dragonfire1981  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:00:24am

re: #55 EmmmieG

Why the quotation marks? What is the difference between citizens of the United States of America and “Americans?”

According to wingnuts: Guns, a love for Jesus and white skin.

63 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:00:35am

re: #59 thedopefishlives

Yes, which is why CBS should not frame it in these terms.

64 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:00:53am

re: #60 Buck

Is that ‘all deductions for people making over a million’? Why are you positing it that way?

65 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:00:59am

Got it. You’re referencing the fact that the poll just says “Americans” rather than “Americans who watched the speech, which is probably a lower percent of Americans who watched a reality TV show, because our educational system is lousy.”

Mine is a bit wordier, I admit.

66 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:01:13am

re: #61 Alouette

I think he was in Canada, U.S. civics lessons wouldn’t apply there.

It’s always fun when Buck tried to talk about the Constitution, especially.

67 lawhawk  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:01:20am

Let’s take a much more limited item from the speech yesterday - one that can be addressed not by legislation, but by a simple adjustment of the Senate rules to require an up/down vote on judicial nominations to the federal courts. That’s a broken process, but will the Senate fix this when the answer is to assent to the change proposed by the President to clean up the nomination process?

I doubt it - because partisanship trumps logic and rational action.

68 Charles Johnson  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:01:28am

The spinning is getting frantic in here.

69 Buck  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:01:48am

re: #51 Charles

What are you talking about? Who ever suggested that?

I guess a proper thread would have made this more clear. In my #22 I explained that the President suggested that.

Washington should stop subsidizing millionaires. In fact, if you’re earning a million dollars a year, you shouldn’t get special tax subsidies or deductions.

70 dragonfire1981  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:01:54am

What bothers me is while I like a lot of the ideas he proposed, I can about guarantee he’ll barely be able to get any of it done due to Republican stonewalling and obstructionist politics.

The American people are tired of the bullshit. We want action. We want some of what the President says to be what actually happens.

71 jamesfirecat  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:02:03am

re: #64 Obdicut

Is that ‘all deductions for people making over a million’? Why are you positing it that way?

You’re not being fair to Buck on that one Obdicut he was responding to my request for examples of a President actively sending a bill to congress not talking about any bill particular at the time.

72 pinkbunny  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:02:14am

re: #12 rwmofo

Typical rightwing bullshit dribbling out!

Having a background in economics and statistics, and working in manufacturing, I can tell you unequivocally, supply side economics is bunk! And that’s the technical term.

The biggest component for driving any economy is demand, and demand works more powerfully, if you have 90% of Americans with equitable income!

No matter how many tax cuts you throw at manufacturing companies, unless demand is there, we’re not going to produce more and thus increase output and hire workers.

73 Lidane  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:02:18am

re: #60 Buck

Here. This might help you:

Youtube Video
74 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:02:25am

re: #69 Buck

What does the word ‘special’ mean, Buck?

75 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:03:25am

re: #72 pinkbunny

When George Bush the Elder called Reaganomics ‘Voodoo economics’ I hoped that fiscal insanity was being rejected by the GOP. Turned out just to be a head-fake.

76 Charles Johnson  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:03:36am

re: #69 Buck

I guess a proper thread would have made this more clear. In my #22 I explained that the President suggested that.

Oh, I see, it’s a simple case of reading comprehension fail.

you shouldn’t get special tax subsidies or deductions…

Operative term in bold to help you understand.

77 wrenchwench  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:04:28am

re: #38 bulldurham

Nitpicking, but that’s 91% of people who watched the speech. I assume there’s some selection bias there…

Greetings, hatchling.

78 jamesfirecat  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:04:32am

re: #73 Lidane

Here. This might help you:

[Video]

I’m an amendment to be,
Yes an amendment to be,
And I’m hoping that they’ll ratify me!
There’s a lot of flag burners who have got too much freedom
I want to make it legal for policemen to beat ‘em!

79 jamesfirecat  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:05:03am

re: #75 Obdicut

When George Bush the Elder called Reaganomics ‘Voodoo economics’ I hoped that fiscal insanity was being rejected by the GOP. Turned out just to be a head-fake.

Voodoo economics is all that animates the decaying corpse of the once proud Republican party…

80 McSpiff  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:05:20am

re: #69 Buck

I guess a proper thread would have made this more clear. In my #22 I explained that the President suggested that.

Special =/= Any. Morons…. can’t live with them, but they just wont go away.

81 TDG2112  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:05:55am

re: #38 bulldurham

Nitpicking, but that’s 91% of people who watched the speech. I assume there’s some selection bias there…

Yeah, that was what the poll was about. So no problem there. However, it is an “online” poll? So does this mean it was only people who watched the speech one the CBS website? Or did they do a random selection and call them?

I thought it was a fine speech. Stick to those themes and we’ll have 4 more years of Obama. I just am not sure that this poll has much meaning other than people who like Obama enough to sit through an hour long speech and click like or dislike afterwards on a website like him more after listening to him.

82 bulldurham  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:06:10am

re: #49 Sergey Romanov

That’s all I meant. It will be interesting to find out whether a nationally representative sample approves or disapproves of the proposals the president made. I would hope approve, but, well. We’ll see.

83 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:06:21am

re: #63 Sergey Romanov

Yes, which is why CBS should not frame it in these terms.

It’s typical media headlining of a statistical study. The problem is, they do it so often, people tend to get used to it rather than actually querying the study.

84 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:06:39am

But “Americans” v. “watchers” issue aside, this statistic can be useful for comparison purposes. Any CBS stats on Clinton, Bush SOTU reactions?

85 Buck  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:06:53am

re: #76 Charles

Oh, I see, it’s a simple case of reading comprehension fail.

Operative term in bold to help you understand.

Yes, the lack of any detail is what I am talking about. The President gets to have it both ways. I was clear in my #22. So what special deductions are given ONLY to people who earn one million dollars or more? What special deduction kicks in only after you make more than 1 million?

It makes a good sound bite, but really means nothing. That is my point.

86 McSpiff  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:08:07am

re: #85 Buck

Yes, the lack of any detail is what I am talking about. The President gets to have it both ways. I was clear in my #22. So what special deductions are given ONLY to people who earn one million dollars or more? What special deduction kicks in only after you make more than 1 million?

It makes a good sound bite, but really means nothing. That is my point.

Wait, so because you don’t understand and are generally uninformed, that’s now Obama’s fault?

New one.

87 wrenchwench  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:08:29am

re: #85 Buck

Yes, the lack of any detail is what I am talking about. The President gets to have it both ways. I was clear in my #22. So what special deductions are given ONLY to people who earn one million dollars or more? What special deduction kicks in only after you make more than 1 million?

It makes a good sound bite, but really means nothing. That is my point.

You wanted a four hour speech?

88 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:09:02am

re: #85 Buck

The President has better things to do than research and explain the fine nuances of tax law to people like you.

89 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:09:28am

re: #85 Buck

Yes, the lack of any detail is what I am talking about. The President gets to have it both ways. I was clear in my #22. So what special deductions are given ONLY to people who earn one million dollars or more? What special deduction kicks in only after you make more than 1 million?

It makes a good sound bite, but really means nothing. That is my point.

Buck, given that the SOTU has to cover a lot of ground in a short period of time:

When it comes to the deficit, we’ve already agreed to more than $2 trillion in cuts and savings. But we need to do more, and that means making choices. Right now, we’re poised to spend nearly $1 trillion more on what was supposed to be a temporary tax break for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Right now, because of loopholes and shelters in the tax code, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households. Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

Do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Or do we want to keep our investments in everything else – like education and medical research; a strong military and care for our veterans? Because if we’re serious about paying down our debt, we can’t do both.

I think that this is what the President was discussing.

90 Charles Johnson  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:09:32am

re: #81 TDG2112

Yeah, that was what the poll was about. So no problem there. However, it is an “online” poll? So does this mean it was only people who watched the speech one the CBS website? Or did they do a random selection and call them?

I thought it was a fine speech. Stick to those themes and we’ll have 4 more years of Obama. I just am not sure that this poll has much meaning other than people who like Obama enough to sit through an hour long speech and click like or dislike afterwards on a website like him more after listening to him.

In this case, “online poll” does not mean one of those open polls where anyone can click an option. It was conducted by Knowledge Research, a well-known polling firm.

91 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:09:42am

re: #85 Buck

Well, for example, social security tax gets capped. That’s a huge tax break for those making millions.

You’re probably right that one million isn’t a literal cut-off for any specific tax break, but playing stupid and pretending not to understand what Obama meant— trying to take a strict literal interpretation and claiming that he’s inaccurate because it’s not literally true— just makes you look dumb.

Playing dumb = looking dumb. This is something that modern faux-conservatives haven’t learned yet.

92 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:10:41am

re: #48 Charles

Well, uh, it is a poll on approval of the speech. How would it make sense to include people who didn’t watch it?

Because those who hate Obama and everything he says, does and stands for did not need to watch it in order to disapprove.

93 chunkymonkey  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:12:04am
The wingnuts may hoot and gibber, but a CBS News poll shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans approved of Obama’s speech.

Like, did an overwhelming majority of Americans even watch, listen to, or read the speech? I doubt it. That’s got to be right up there with the second most stupid poll result ever.

94 Charles Johnson  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:13:11am

It’s a wingnut trifecta.

95 Lidane  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:13:16am

Sorry to go OT so quickly, but the GOP keeps on trucking with that lovely minority outreach:

Let Them Eat Tacos: Mayor’s Regrettable Response To Alleged Police Abuse Of Latinos

96 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:13:42am

re: #90 Charles

Actually, to piggyback on this topic, I just realized something. There probably is a selection bias in picking people who watched the speech, and as I mentioned before, it would be unavoidable. However, it could be counteracted by selecting the sample with this selection bias in mind. That is to say, selecting the sample such that the political balance of the sample matched that of political America at large. thus, you minimize the selection bias of being forced to include only people who watched the speech.

97 McSpiff  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:13:43am

My modest proposal:

“For taxation purposes, the primary income source is treated as personal earnings (wages).”

Making $100k a year as a doctor + another $20k from stocks? Great, existing rules apply.

You’re Mittens and make 100% of your income from investments? Taxed as income instead of capital gains.

Cons to this approach?

98 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:14:08am

re: #94 Charles

It’s a wingnut trifecta.

I hope tshinkle arrives in time. Then it will be all four horsemen of the Wingnutolypse.

99 Kragar  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:14:11am

Who starts a typed sentence with like?

100 Lidane  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:14:42am

re: #88 thedopefishlives

The President has better things to do than research and explain the fine nuances of tax law to people like you.

You mean he’s not there to cater to us and our temper tantrums 24/7? LIES! BLASPHEMY!

101 Kragar  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:14:44am

re: #98 Sergey Romanov

I hope tshinkle arrives in time. Then it will be all four horsemen of the Wingnutolypse.

Seethe, Rage, Gibber, and Howl?

102 wrenchwench  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:14:47am

re: #99 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Who starts a typed sentence with like?

Teenaged girls?

103 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:15:18am

re: #97 McSpiff

Investment income should be taxed in a way that’s linked to inflation, so as not to penalize long-term investment. It should benefit it. Right now, one year and you get the long-term benefit. It should kick in gradually over time.

104 Gus  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:15:18am

Like they say. If Obama had announced a cure for cancer the wingnuts would still whine and moan. There’s no getting though them. That includes Puritopians.

105 Kragar  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:15:22am

re: #102 wrenchwench

Teenaged girls?

Like, OMG, WTH!

106 Lidane  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:15:29am

re: #101 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Seethe, Rage, Gibber, and Howl?

Herp, Derp, Eleventy, and Doc

107 Vicious Babushka  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:15:33am

re: #98 Sergey Romanov

I hope tshinkle arrives in time. Then it will be all four horsemen of the Wingnutolypse.

stinkle only shows up on defunct threads.

108 jamesfirecat  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:15:39am

re: #93 chunkymonkey

Like, did an overwhelming majority of Americans even watch, listen to, or read the speech? I doubt it. That’s got to be right up there with the second most stupid poll result ever.

You are sadly correct as evidently only 42.8 million Americans watched

[Link: uspolitics.about.com…]

Which is less than one in six given the 300 million population of America.

Still it’d be interesting if we could get a political breakdown of those who watched…

109 Charles Johnson  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:15:40am

re: #96 thedopefishlives

Actually, to piggyback on this topic, I just realized something. There probably is a selection bias in picking people who watched the speech, and as I mentioned before, it would be unavoidable. However, it could be counteracted by selecting the sample with this selection bias in mind. That is to say, selecting the sample such that the political balance of the sample matched that of political America at large. thus, you minimize the selection bias of being forced to include only people who watched the speech.

I think that’s very likely the case.

110 chunkymonkey  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:15:44am

re: #48 Charles

Well, uh, it is a poll on approval of the speech. How would it make sense to include people who didn’t watch it?

Yeah, but your big headline states

Wingnuts Hoot at Obama Speech, But 91% of Americans Approve

You can’t have it both ways. I know you hate right wingers, wingnuts, teabaggers, etc, but try to be reasonable.

111 pinkbunny  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:15:44am

re: #85 Buck

Yes, the lack of any detail is what I am talking about. The President gets to have it both ways. I was clear in my #22. So what special deductions are given ONLY to people who earn one million dollars or more? What special deduction kicks in only after you make more than 1 million?

It makes a good sound bite, but really means nothing. That is my point.

Ok - so you don’t know, and it only speaks to your ignorance, and probably a lot of other Americans.

112 Buck  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:15:55am

re: #91 Obdicut

because it’s not literally true

Right. The guy who is known to be the smartest guy in the room. Who made notes and changes in his own handwriting. The speech that was gone over and over and every word was parsed…. not meant to be taken literally.

The whole point is that he can say these pie in the sky comments, but never really have to act on them. “A chicken in every pot” kind of stuff. Well, not literally a chicken, and maybe not every pot. And Congress never got around to actually writing a bill. So…. Maybe next time…

I think that is my point. I actually gave two very good examples. I could give more.

113 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:16:06am

re: #96 thedopefishlives

Actually, to piggyback on this topic, I just realized something. There probably is a selection bias in picking people who watched the speech, and as I mentioned before, it would be unavoidable. However, it could be counteracted by selecting the sample with this selection bias in mind. That is to say, selecting the sample such that the political balance of the sample matched that of political America at large. thus, you minimize the selection bias of being forced to include only people who watched the speech.

You would have to contact 1,050 people before the speech, get a sample that corresponds with demographics, ask them to watch the speech, then take a poll.

Why 1,050? Some won’t do it, even if asked. People are like that.

114 chunkymonkey  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:16:13am

re: #94 Charles

It’s a wingnut trifecta.

It’s a moonbat multifecta, whoo hoo!

115 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:16:17am

re: #105 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Like, OMG, WTH!

tee hee

116 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:16:37am

re: #114 chunkymonkey

It’s a moonbat multifecta, whoo hoo!

no u

117 Kragar  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:16:44am

re: #106 Lidane

Herp, Derp, Eleventy, and Doc

Those are the squires of the Wingpocolypse

118 Charles Johnson  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:16:59am

re: #114 chunkymonkey

U MAD BRO?

119 Gus  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:17:14am

Did someone just call us moonbats?

120 Kragar  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:17:56am

re: #119 Gus 802

Did someone just call us moonbats?

GET OFF MY LAWN HIPPIES!

121 Lidane  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:17:57am

re: #112 Buck

So in other words, you’re reduced to nothing but whining. Got it.

122 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:18:22am

re: #113 EmmmieG

You would have to contact 1,050 people before the speech, get a sample that corresponds with demographics, ask them to watch the speech, then take a poll.

Why 1,050? Some won’t do it, even if asked. People are like that.

It could be done in a variety of ways. For an online form, they could do something like ask your political affiliation up front, and your response didn’t match the necessary demographic balance, you would not be asked to answer.

123 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:18:53am

BTW, I mostly don’t downding them now. They, like, enjoy it.

124 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:18:55am

re: #119 Gus 802

Did someone just call us moonbats?

Why, just the other day I said taxation shouldn’t be used to enact social policies. Can you imagine anything more moonbatty? I’ve got this crazy idea we should increase taxation on those who can well afford it in order to pay for the things that this country desperately needs.

125 pinkbunny  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:18:58am

re: #103 Obdicut

Investment income should be taxed in a way that’s linked to inflation, so as not to penalize long-term investment. It should benefit it. Right now, one year and you get the long-term benefit. It should kick in gradually over time.

For Short Term Capital gains, there should be higher rates, above normal tax rates to discourage speculation

for long term capital gains, for income in bracket above 25% should make it 25% not 15%

126 Gus  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:19:27am

I see some wingnut “logic” here. They’ll say “why if Obama is so smart how come he hasn’t convinced me in the SOTU address!?”

Right. As if that was possible. And the smartest man in the room was George W. Bush. I also have a bridge to sell in Arizona.

127 Lidane  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:19:34am

re: #118 Charles

U MAD BRO?

Image: umadbrah.jpg

128 chunkymonkey  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:19:35am

re: #109 Charles

I think that’s very likely the case.

re: #91 Obdicut

Well, for example, social security tax gets capped. That’s a huge tax break for those making millions.

That’s just stupid. SS is supposed to be a system in which you get back what you pay in. It’s for your retirement, right? Except that it’s BS and everyone knows that there’s no money in the “lock box” waiting for you to retire.

129 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:20:07am

re: #122 thedopefishlives

It could be done in a variety of ways. For an online form, they could do something like ask your political affiliation up front, and your response didn’t match the necessary demographic balance, you would not be asked to answer.

Online has a huge problem: Old people vote more than they go online by a huge margin.

130 Kragar  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:20:11am

re: #123 Sergey Romanov

BTW, I mostly don’t downding them now. They, like, enjoy it.

Attention whores love attention.

We know our own.
/

131 McSpiff  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:20:26am

re: #103 Obdicut

Investment income should be taxed in a way that’s linked to inflation, so as not to penalize long-term investment. It should benefit it. Right now, one year and you get the long-term benefit. It should kick in gradually over time.

Agreed, but I don’t see the benefit to encouraging investment over working a regular job.

132 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:20:30am

re: #123 Sergey Romanov

BTW, I mostly don’t downding them now. They, like, enjoy it.

I’m just too lazy to bother.

133 Buck  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:20:38am

re: #111 pinkbunny

Ok - so you don’t know, and it only speaks to your ignorance, and probably a lot of other Americans.

Because there are none. I don’t know about any, because they don’t exist.

Obdicut mentions the Social Security Cap. That starts at around $100,000, not a million. Big difference.

134 KingKenrod  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:20:54am

re: #97 McSpiff

My modest proposal:

“For taxation purposes, the primary income source is treated as personal earnings (wages).”

Making $100k a year as a doctor + another $20k from stocks? Great, existing rules apply.

You’re Mittens and make 100% of your income from investments? Taxed as income instead of capital gains.

Cons to this approach?

Could devastate the municipal bond market if you don’t allow their exemption. That’s a $3 trillion market.

Could cause more money to go into speculative and overseas investments instead of long term investing in the US.

Taxing long term capital gains at 35% is probably a bad idea, there should be a difference between long term and short term tax rates. Long term capital gains have only been as high as 35% once before (during the 1970’s).

135 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:21:16am

re: #129 EmmmieG

Online has a huge problem: Old people vote more than they go online by a huge margin.

I’m just saying, there are ways of compensating the data that may not necessarily involve cold-calling 1,050 people and asking them to watch the speech and send a response. Although that is a perfectly viable option.

136 jamesfirecat  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:21:16am

re: #112 Buck

Right. The guy who is known to be the smartest guy in the room. Who made notes and changes in his own handwriting. The speech that was gone over and over and every word was parsed… not meant to be taken literally.

The whole point is that he can say these pie in the sky comments, but never really have to act on them. “A chicken in every pot” kind of stuff. Well, not literally a chicken, and maybe not every pot. And Congress never got around to actually writing a bill. So… Maybe next time…

I think that is my point. I actually gave two very good examples. I could give more.

So you’re upset that a man whose job description involves directly separating him from the process of making laws, doesn’t have more control over the legislative system in our country? Obama made his intentions celar, the ball is now in congress’ court.

137 chunkymonkey  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:21:32am

re: #118 Charles

U MAD BRO?

No madder than anyone else. I was just echoing your sentiment. Good for the goose, right?

138 Decatur Deb  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:21:44am

Morning all. I sense a disturbance in the force, as though thousands of wingnuts suddenly cried out in terror.

139 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:22:05am

re: #129 EmmmieG

Online has a huge problem: Old people vote more than they go online by a huge margin.

Well, yeah. I don’t trust “online polls” by def, regardless of whether they have safeguards. Zogby’s online poll, for example, is infamous for getting ridiculous results.

140 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:22:34am

re: #135 thedopefishlives

I’m just saying, there are ways of compensating the data that may not necessarily involve cold-calling 1,050 people and asking them to watch the speech and send a response. Although that is a perfectly viable option.

One of the saddest days in my life was when the Nielsen company called and asked us to be a Nielsen family, and we were disqualified because we, um, lack a television.

People like to think their opinions matter.

141 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:22:39am

re: #139 Sergey Romanov

Well, yeah. I don’t trust “online polls” by def, regardless of whether they have safeguards. Zogby’s online poll is infamous for getting ridiculous results.

RON PAUL!

142 McSpiff  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:22:41am

re: #134 KingKenrod

Could devastate the municipal bond market if you don’t allow their exemption. That’s a $3 trillion dollar market.

Could cause more money to go into speculative and overseas investments instead of long term investing in the US.

Taxing long term capital gains at 35% is probably a bad idea, there should be a difference between long term and short term tax rates. Long term capital gains have only been as high as 35% once before (during the 1970’s).

Interesting point. Sounds like seperating long term vs short term is the way to go.

143 chunkymonkey  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:23:33am

re: #118 Charles

U MAD BRO?

And you still can’t have it both ways.

144 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:23:34am

re: #141 thedopefishlives

RON PAUL!

No, I mean the ones that can’t be rigged. There’s still a selection bias of who uses the net.

145 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:23:37am

re: #128 chunkymonkey

That’s just stupid. SS is supposed to be a system in which you get back what you pay in.

No, it’s not. The payments started before the taxes were even collected.

It has an element of paying back what you put in, but it’s not a savings account.

It’s for your retirement, right?

It’s because before we had SS, we had millions of elderly living in poverty, or working far past the time it was healthy, safe, or comfortable, taking up jobs that younger people needed, because they couldn’t afford to retire.

Is ignorance of the reason why we have social programs necessary in order to make these facile arguments, or do you actually know the reasons but choose to ignore them when making your case because it’s so inconvenient?

146 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:24:12am

re: #144 Sergey Romanov

No, I mean the ones that can’t be rigged. There’s still a selection bias of who uses the net.

I know. I was only kidding. Although the fact that some online polls are improperly constructed is another point against them, in general.

147 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:24:35am

re: #133 Buck

Because there are none. I don’t know about any, because they don’t exist.

Obdicut mentions the Social Security Cap. That starts at around $100,000, not a million. Big difference.

Yes. Again, if you want to nitpick that there’s no specific taxes that kick in exactly at $1,000,000, you’re probably right. Congratulations.

148 Political Atheist  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:25:04am

I hope it’s not too soon for factcheck etc.

[Link: factcheck.org…]

[Link: www.politifact.com…]

149 Buck  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:25:15am

re: #136 jamesfirecat

So you’re upset that a man whose job description involves directly separating him from the process of making laws, doesn’t have more control over the legislative system in our country? Obama made his intentions celar, the ball is now in congress’ court.

That is not what I said, but if I have to be even more clear, He could propose a bill, and get a member of Congress to submit it for him.

OR he could just say stuff that can’t ever voted on and stand for the cheer!

150 Decatur Deb  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:26:05am

re: #140 EmmmieG

One of the saddest days in my life was when the Nielsen company called and asked us to be a Nielsen family, and we were disqualified because we, um, lack a television.

People like to think their opinions matter.

Gottcha covered. We were a Nielsen family twice—explains the long run of Inspector Morse on Alabama Public TV.

151 Kragar  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:26:18am

re: #143 chunkymonkey

And you still can’t have it both ways.

You mean like the guys claiming the GOP wants to maximize individual liberty while at the same time actively campaigning to limit the rights of individuals?

152 Gus  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:26:25am

Why that there Barrack Hussein Obama had 132 iterations of the word “I” in his speech. And he didn’t mention Moozlamic Rayguns not once. He also said nuttin’ ‘bout attacking Iran and a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman like are bible tells us so. Nor did he say not one word about those inner city abortions!

153 lawhawk  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:27:05am

re: #85 Buck

Limited time to respond to this post, but here goes.

There are deductions and credits that have phase outs depending on income level. Some don’t. That means someone who makes $1 million could get the same kind of deduction that someone making $50,000 or $250,000 would get. For instance, some education credits phase out with an AGI of $160k-$180k for married.

Then, there’s the fact that FICA (aka Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/OASDI) taxes are capped. That means only the first $110,000 of income earned in 2012 is taxed at the 6% rate. Everything over that level isn’t taxed. So, someone making $110,000 would pay the same FICA as someone making $110 million since it’s only the first $110,000 that is covered.

154 jamesfirecat  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:27:07am

re: #149 Buck

That is not what I said, but if I have to be even more clear, He could propose a bill, and get a member of Congress to submit it for him.

OR he could just say stuff that can’t ever voted on and stand for the cheer!

Well then lets sit back and see what happens rather than second guessing what he will or won’t do, doesn’t that sound more fair than flying off the handle and lambasting him for faults he has yet to actively commit?

Because unless you can read Obama’s mind, how can you know for sure he won’t submit such bills?

155 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:27:12am

re: #148 Rightwingconspirator

Oh, the results are not bad.

156 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:27:28am

To prove my point, I have a new poll up on a page about alternative energy.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

May I point out that I would guess that 98% of American Lizards vote.

157 Charles Johnson  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:27:39am

re: #148 Rightwingconspirator

I hope it’s not too soon for factcheck etc.

[Link: factcheck.org…]

[Link: www.politifact.com…]

Politifact’s claim that Obama’s statement about job growth was “half true” is utterly ludicrous.

If you read their piece on it, you’ll find out that Obama’s claim was 100% true. They gave it a “half true” rating because they think he shouldn’t take credit for it. This isn’t fact checking, it’s BS.

158 Kragar  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:28:41am

Proof that civilization is collapsing, the following statement appeared as the most liked for a Tatu video:

“This is an example of how good music was in the past…

159 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:28:50am

FactCheck: “The president’s State of the Union address got the facts right — mostly.”

160 jamesfirecat  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:28:57am

re: #157 Charles

Politifact’s claim that Obama’s statement about job growth has “half true” is utterly ludicrous.

If you read their piece on it, you’ll find out that Obama’s claim was 100% true. They gave it a “half true” rating because they think he shouldn’t take credit for it. This isn’t fact checking, it’s BS.

Politifact lost all credibility with me when they decided to use something that was true as their “lie of the year”.

161 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:29:13am

re: #157 Charles

Even so, they’re not rating anything false, which is a pretty big accomplishment for a politician giving a speech.

162 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:30:08am

re: #161 Obdicut

Yeah but they are twisting themselves in knots as they try to be “balanced”.

163 Vicious Babushka  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:30:31am

re: #140 EmmmieG

One of the saddest days in my life was when the Nielsen company called and asked us to be a Nielsen family, and we were disqualified because we, um, lack a television.

People like to think their opinions matter.

Wait, you too?

164 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:31:03am

re: #127 Lidane

Image: umadbrah.jpg

Image: crtZF.jpg

165 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:31:07am

Mitt Romney wants you to know that banks are scared and feel your pain too…

166 Buck  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:31:20am

re: #153 lawhawk

Limited time to respond to this post, but here goes.

There are deductions and credits that have phase outs depending on income level. Some don’t. That means someone who makes $1 million could get the same kind of deduction that someone making $50,000 or $250,000 would get. For instance, some education credits phase out with an AGI of $160k-$180k for married.

Then, there’s the fact that FICA (aka Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/OASDI) taxes are capped. That means only the first $110,000 of income earned in 2012 is taxed at the 6% rate. Everything over that level isn’t taxed. So, someone making $110,000 would pay the same FICA as someone making $110 million since it’s only the first $110,000 that is covered.

Yes yes… that is what I am saying. Now in both cases these “special” deductions and tax breaks are effecting those who earn under $250,000, the middle class. Not just the 2%.

You think Obama didn’t know that?

167 Kragar  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:31:27am

re: #163 Alouette

Wait, you too?

The TV is that thing I have the DVD player and Wii hooked up to, right?

168 Gus  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:31:35am

So let me see if I have this right. We’re seeing signs of an economic recovery and what looks to a Summer that we haven’t seen since Bush left office during the great Meltdown of October 2008 and the right wing is still complaining? We are seeing what might be some good news and they’re intent on remaining in denial and hoping that the economy is not and will not recover?

169 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:32:17am

re: #168 Gus 802

So let me see if I have this right. We’re seeing signs of an economic recovery and what looks to a Summer that we haven’t seen since Bush left office during the great Meltdown of October 2008 and the right wing is still complaining? We are seeing what might be some good news and they’re intent on remaining in denial and hoping that the economy is not and will not recover?

Economy recovers (dynamics) = second Obama term. Can’t have that.

170 Gus  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:32:38am

@AngryBlackLady Imani ABL
ICYMI AT #ABLC: President Obama Orders Successful SEALs Rescue of Hostages in Somalia [Link: t.co…] by @AngryBlackLady #p2 #TFY

171 Charles Johnson  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:32:52am

re: #161 Obdicut

Even so, they’re not rating anything false, which is a pretty big accomplishment for a politician giving a speech.

True, but it’s really offensive for them to set themselves up as fact-checkers, and then base their ratings on their own opinions.

172 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:32:54am

re: #168 Gus 802

Any sign of economic recovery would be detrimental to the GOP’s strategy, yes. They are going to have a hard time demonstrating any enthusiasm for it.

173 Political Atheist  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:33:12am

re: #157 Charles

I think you read an early version, they updated.
“”EDITOR’S NOTE: Our original Half True rating was based on an interpretation that Obama was crediting his policies for the jobs increase. But we’ve concluded that he was not making that linkage as strongly as we initially believed and have decided to change the ruling to Mostly True.”“

[Link: www.politifact.com…]

The half true rating that stands is this about GM being #1
[Link: www.politifact.com…]

174 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:33:13am

re: #166 Buck

Also, “One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind” doesn’t really make any sense.

175 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:33:33am

re: #168 Gus 802

So let me see if I have this right. We’re seeing signs of an economic recovery and what looks to a Summer that we haven’t seen since Bush left office during the great Meltdown of October 2008 and the right wing is still complaining? We are seeing what might be some good news and they’re intent on remaining in denial and hoping that the economy is not and will not recover?

That’s pretty much right on. What’s good for America is bad for the Republicans.

176 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:33:37am

re: #169 Sergey Romanov

Economy recovers (dynamics) = second Obama term. Can’t have that.

RWNJs can’t decide which GOP candidate the liberal media is going too easy on…

177 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:33:38am

re: #171 Charles

True, but it’s really offensive for them to set themselves up as fact-checkers, and then base their ratings on their own opinions.

Yeah, they fell for their own hype pretty quickly.

178 Wozza Matter?  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:33:54am

re: #158 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Proof that civilization is collapsing, the following statement appeared as the most liked for a Tatu video:

“This is an example of how good music was in the past…

I only watch their videos for the articles…

179 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:34:00am

re: #168 Gus 802

Yep. If things go good for the country then Obama looks good. Rush said it from the beginning he wants Obama and his entire agenda to fail and doesn’t care how fucked up the country becomes (or stays) as a result. The bush years, for them, were their idea of heaven.

180 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:34:00am

re: #173 Rightwingconspirator

Heh! At least they’re self-correcting at times.

181 Charles Johnson  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:34:30am

re: #173 Rightwingconspirator

I think you read an early version, they updated.
“”EDITOR’S NOTE: Our original Half True rating was based on an interpretation that Obama was crediting his policies for the jobs increase. But we’ve concluded that he was not making that linkage as strongly as we initially believed and have decided to change the ruling to Mostly True.”“

And it’s still wrong. The claim was absolutely 100% true. Nothing “mostly” about it.

182 Gus  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:34:55am

re: #172 ralphieboy

Any sign of economic recovery would be detrimental to the GOP’s strategy, yes. They are going to have a hard time demonstrating any enthusiasm for it.

Not me. I wouldn’t care who was in office. Finally seeing some signs of a true recovery is best not only for myself but all Americans. Their interests lies not with the American people but maintaining an ideological warfare even if it is in determent to the American people. This is where the true “class warfare” is propagated and it is from the Republican Party and their surrogates.

183 Kragar  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:35:15am

re: #178 wozzablog

I only watch their videos for the articles…

I watch them because of Russian chicks dressed as schoolgirls stripper dancing in the rain, but to each their own.

184 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:35:43am

re: #183 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Huzzah!

185 Flounder  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:35:46am

re: #182 Gus 802

Hey stranger, long time no see!

186 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:35:47am

re: #182 Gus 802

Not me. I wouldn’t care who was in office. Finally seeing some signs of a true recovery is best not only for myself but all Americans. Their interests lies not with the American people but maintaining an ideological warfare even if it is in determent to the American people. This is where the true “class warfare” is propagated and it is from the Republican Party and their surrogates.

Only now, at the end, do you understand.

187 Gus  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:36:07am

Statement by the President on Successful Hostage Rescue

On Monday, I authorized an operation to rescue Jessica Buchanan, an American citizen who was kidnapped and held against her will for three months in Somalia. Thanks to the extraordinary courage and capabilities of our Special Operations Forces, yesterday Jessica Buchanan was rescued and she is on her way home. As Commander-in-Chief, I could not be prouder of the troops who carried out this mission, and the dedicated professionals who supported their efforts.

Jessica Buchanan was selflessly serving her fellow human beings when she was taken hostage by criminals and pirates who showed no regard for her health and well-being. Last night I spoke with Jessica Buchanan’s father and told him that all Americans have Jessica in our thoughts and prayers, and give thanks that she will soon be reunited with her family. The United States will not tolerate the abduction of our people, and will spare no effort to secure the safety of our citizens and to bring their captors to justice. This is yet another message to the world that the United States of America will stand strongly against any threats to our people.

188 iossarian  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:36:11am

Politifact is a willing participant in the fiction that “since all politicians are the same, if Republicans are telling gigantic whoppers all the time, the Democrats must be too, only we haven’t noticed them.”

The fact is, Republican politicians in 2012 lie a lot more than Democratic ones do.

189 zora  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:36:14am

re: #123 Sergey Romanov

BTW, I mostly don’t downding them now. They, like, enjoy it.

down ding response from wingnuts:

Youtube Video
190 Killgore Trout  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:36:38am

re: #148 Rightwingconspirator

I hope it’s not too soon for factcheck etc.

[Link: factcheck.org…]

[Link: www.politifact.com…]

Thanks for posting that.

191 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:36:41am

re: #140 EmmmieG

One of the saddest days in my life was when the Nielsen company called and asked us to be a Nielsen family, and we were disqualified because we, um, lack a television.

People like to think their opinions matter.

When my father was a grad student, and I was four or five, he accepted an invitation to be part of study by the sociology department of his university. A nice young man was sent to observe us for several weeks.

This guy only told us later that the study had been to observe, unobtrusively, our TV watching habits and relationship to the TV. When he walked into the home he’d been assigned—ours—he was baffled to note that we didn’t have one.

192 Gus  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:36:58am

re: #185 Shropshire_Slasher

Hey stranger, long time no see!

Yo. Still here. Got tired of being all alone (mostly) on Twitter. :)

193 Gus  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:38:18am

Well damn. If Factchecker says all that stuff was wrong I better vote for Gingrich come November.

//

194 Flounder  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:38:19am

re: #192 Gus 802

What is this twitter thing you speak of?
/

195 zora  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:38:26am

re: #129 EmmmieG

Online has a huge problem: Old people vote more than they go online by a huge margin.

[Link: www.politico.com…]

Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner conducted a focus group after last night’s State of the Union address and found that President Obama’s speech scored very well on foreign policy measures, even among voters who supported John McCain in 2008:

Everyone in the McCain voter group spoke highly of Obama’s foreign policy successes. Several said that the speech reminded them of the successes in the war on terror that they had forgotten about. In the words of one participant, “He did some pretty good stuff in the war, he got bin Laden, he’s continued drone attacks started by President Bush, and he’s been a bit of a butt kicker.” Specifically, they appreciated the references to the death of Osama bin Laden, the victory in Libya, and the status of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

196 Political Atheist  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:38:30am

re: #181 Charles

100% is a tough standard.
This is from Factcheck, after calling the claim correct. Quoted in part only-

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs

Obama was also correct when he said that last year’s private job growth was the most in six years and that the manufacturing sector experienced job gains not seen since the 20th century. But he was silent on how far the jobs recovery has to go.

But — what the president didn’t mention — total employment in the U.S. remains nearly 1.7 million below where it was the month Obama took office, and more than 6 million below where it was at the best point in the Bush administration, in January 2008.

– by Brooks Jackson, D’Angelo Gore, Eugene Kiely, Robert Farley, Ben Finley and Lori Robertson

197 iossarian  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:40:16am

re: #196 Rightwingconspirator

Is it fair to say that a shorter version of that criticism is:

“Bush demolished the economy, and Obama hasn’t finished fixing it yet.”

?

198 jamesfirecat  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:40:35am

re: #196 Rightwingconspirator

100% is a tough standard.
This is from Factcheck, after calling the claim correct. Quoted in part only-

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs

Obama was also correct when he said that last year’s private job growth was the most in six years and that the manufacturing sector experienced job gains not seen since the 20th century. But he was silent on how far the jobs recovery has to go.

But — what the president didn’t mention — total employment in the U.S. remains nearly 1.7 million below where it was the month Obama took office, and more than 6 million below where it was at the best point in the Bush administration, in January 2008.

– by Brooks Jackson, D’Angelo Gore, Eugene Kiely, Robert Farley, Ben Finley and Lori Robertson

So we’re gonna measure the top of a bubble against the middle of a recovery? Yeah that’s fair….

199 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:40:55am

re: #187 Gus 802

Statement by the President on Successful Hostage Rescue

Also rescued was “a Danish aid worker”.

200 Interesting Times  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:41:21am

re: #189 zora

down ding response from wingnuts:

[Video]

Nooo, that’s an egregious insult to such a cute, innocent penguin :( Now this would be an appropriate analogy for their response ;)

201 Charles Johnson  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:41:26am

re: #196 Rightwingconspirator

100% is a tough standard.
This is from Factcheck, after calling the claim correct. Quoted in part only-

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs

Obama was also correct when he said that last year’s private job growth was the most in six years and that the manufacturing sector experienced job gains not seen since the 20th century. But he was silent on how far the jobs recovery has to go.

But — what the president didn’t mention — total employment in the U.S. remains nearly 1.7 million below where it was the month Obama took office, and more than 6 million below where it was at the best point in the Bush administration, in January 2008.

– by Brooks Jackson, D’Angelo Gore, Eugene Kiely, Robert Farley, Ben Finley and Lori Robertson

And that’s exactly what I’m talking about. They’re basing a “mostly true” rating on what Obama DIDN’T say. That’s just ridiculous. His statement was completely true.

This kind of thing is why Politifact has lost all credibility. If they’re going to check facts, they shouldn’t be injecting their opinions into it.

202 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:41:27am

re: #196 Rightwingconspirator

Obama is talking dynamics. Individual data points are not of much consequence here, IMHO.

203 Gus  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:42:08am

re: #199 SanFranciscoZionist

Also rescued was “a Danish aid worker”.

Obama should land on the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and make a speech from the deck while wearing a flight suit.

Maybe then the wingnuts will… oh never mind. ;)

204 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:43:58am

re: #203 Gus 802

Obama should land on the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and make a speech from the deck while wearing a flight suit.

Maybe then the wingnuts will… oh never mind. ;)

Chris Matthews would.

///

205 HoosierHoops  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:43:59am

The SOTU is really all about vision and leadership..The measure of the man we elected to lead the free world. Often folks think it’s just about policy..And that is very important but policy happens the other 364 days in DC. Staffers and writers always want to craft our view of the world..Sometimes it’s so predictable it becomes farcical..Like the staffer running into the room yelling we need to lead off with the gun bill in the American President movie.If only DC was like the movies..*sigh*
I measure the man as much as the words
So the hoopster as our long time Moderate here. ( Day one )
I’d like us to address this with your views on SOTU speeches in the past starting with last night 1-10 10 being the best in the history of the world that launches a thousand ships.
Obama: Last night I give him an 8.. Up from a 6 last year
Clinton: 9.. He always was great.. Maybe the best ever..Building bridges to the 21st Century. How good was that line?
now when he would just keep talking and talking the meter drops to like a 7. Please shut up Bill…:)
Bush 1. He had his moments at first.. The thousand points of light…The leadup to the Gulf war one..an 8.. But he ended up about a 4..
Bush 2: He had one great moment in the Sun..9. And went down hill every year ending with his leadership and vision at a 1.
Reagan: Hard to remember back then but he was a great speaker..I’d give him an 8…See? It was Hollywood and DC as one just like the movies..So maybe he would peak at 9 then drop to 6 or 7 during his last 2 years or so.
Carter: Overall..5.Just didn’t inspire as a leader to me
JFK: Easily a 9. He had vision for America..It soared to the stars..He inspired the old and the young with vision and was he a great leader? Proven in War. JFK was a leader born by fire.

206 Killgore Trout  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:44:03am

re: #203 Gus 802

Obama should land on the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and make a speech from the deck while wearing a flight suit.

Maybe then the wingnuts will… oh never mind. ;)

I think he’s still waiting for his custom sized cod piece to be delivered.

207 CuriousLurker  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:45:37am

Heads-up for the Jewish Lizards. Courtesy of Gingrich, I suspect this has the potential to feed anti-Semitism and the “Israel Firster” thing:

What the Adelsons will want for their money

Koppel: But there has to be a so-what at the end of it. So if you win, what does Adelson get out of it?

Gingrich: Well, he knows I’m very pro-Israel. And that’s the central value of his life. I mean, he’s very worried that Israel is going to not survive.

Video at the link.

208 Killgore Trout  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:46:24am

re: #205 HoosierHoops

Pretty good list. Iran-contra killed the Reagan legacy for me.

209 Gus  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:46:33am

re: #204 Sergey Romanov

Chris Matthews would.

///

They’d complain that he was “trying to take credit” when in fact this what presidents always do regardless of who is office. This is a pathology that we’re dealing with however and there’s no getting through to them.

210 zora  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:46:41am

re: #200 publicityStunted

Nooo, that’s an egregious insult to such a cute, innocent penguin :( Now this would be an appropriate analogy for their response ;)

thanks for the brain stain. /

211 Vicious Babushka  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:46:49am

re: #199 SanFranciscoZionist

Also rescued was “a Danish aid worker”.

What about everyone who didn’t want to be rescued? Did Obama rescue them against their will? Huh? Did he ask them if they wanted to be rescued before sending in the SEALS at taxpayer expense?

212 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:46:58am

re: #207 CuriousLurker

Heads-up for the Jewish Lizards. Courtesy of Gingrich, I suspect this has the potential to feed anti-Semitism and the “Israel Firster” thing:

What the Adelsons will want for their money

Video at the link.

Thanks…and, oh, yeah, it’s already going.

213 Vicious Babushka  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:47:20am

re: #207 CuriousLurker

Heads-up for the Jewish Lizards. Courtesy of Gingrich, I suspect this has the potential to feed anti-Semitism and the “Israel Firster” thing:

What the Adelsons will want for their money


Video at the link.

Sheldon Adelson is a big bag of dicks.

214 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:47:58am

re: #213 Alouette

Sheldon Adelson is a big bag of small dicks.

FTFY

//i will burn in hell

215 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:48:19am

re: #207 CuriousLurker

For me it’s not so much the Israel-firster-ness of that, as the implication that Israel faces danger of annihilation more under Obama than they would under Gingrich.

216 CuriousLurker  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:48:39am

re: #212 SanFranciscoZionist

Thanks…and, oh, yeah, it’s already going.

Indeed. I just worry because it’s Gingrich. He’ll say or do any damned thing regardless of who it might harm.

217 Gus  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:48:44am

re: #211 Alouette

Meanwhile Glenn Greenwald is in mourning over the dead hostage takers.

//

218 Wozza Matter?  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:49:14am

re: #205 HoosierHoops

Last night 7.5.

It is a masterpiece of subtlety rooted in this particular moment - demolishing Repub presidential lines of attack every few seconds and reminding people about his security achievements.

Will it be quotable in 5 years?. I’m not so sure.

It got the job done last night though, as the viewer poll rating shows.

219 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:49:36am

re: #216 CuriousLurker

Indeed. I just worry because it Gingrich. He’ll say or do any damned thing regardless of who it might harm.

Therefore we should elect him president.

220 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:49:38am

bee bee el

221 TedStriker  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:49:40am

re: #34 thedopefishlives

The stupid is strong out there today. Maybe that’s because Obama actually spoke in terms they could understand.

And they’re pissed off and scared shitless that some of what Obama laid out there may come to pass, especially if he wins the general and the Dems take back the House in November.

222 Gus  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:50:22am

re: #220 Sergey Romanov

bee bee el

El oh el.

223 leftynyc  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:50:27am

re: #12 rwmofo

It makes sense that the President has to dumb his message down to appeal to the low-information voters which are the core of his constituency.

Seems like “fairness” was mentioned last night.

As George Bernard Shaw so eloquently put it: “Any government that robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul.”

For the government to put a dollar into the private sector—i.e., government spending—it has to take it from the private sector first. This is left-wing logic: Their radical redistribution policies (robbing “the rich” so they can pay off their friends, unions, etc) will make the economy grow.

…and there are actually people gullible enough to believe that works.

What’s the matter, cupcake. Did you see your chances of winning the Presidency get blown out of the water last night? I can certainly understand your bitterness. Poor thing.

224 Feline Fearless Leader  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:50:51am

re: #138 Decatur Deb

Morning all. I sense a disturbance in the force, as though thousands of wingnuts suddenly cried out in terror.

That wasn’t terror. That was Varek playing with that rewired light switch.
;)

225 CuriousLurker  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:50:53am

re: #213 Alouette

Sheldon Adelson is a big bag of dicks.

Even more cause for concern then.

226 Killgore Trout  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:51:05am

re: #212 SanFranciscoZionist

Thanks…and, oh, yeah, it’s already going.

Is there any validity to the story? I saw the link to Mondowiess and decided to stop reading.

227 William Barnett-Lewis  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:51:32am

I am surprised that I haven’t heard the Wingnuts complaining about Obama causing job losses in the Piracy sector…


///

228 Vicious Babushka  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:51:36am

re: #217 Gus 802

Meanwhile Glenn Greenwald is in mourning over the dead hostage takers.

//

How dare Obama take away those poor Africans’ only means of livelihood!

I only used purple font because we don’t have a moonbat font.

229 Political Atheist  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:52:05am

re: #198 jamesfirecat

It’s fair because those are the jobs that need to be replaced to get employment to those good levels. Getting those (or that many) people back to work.

Of course none of those numbers are “clean” they are based on this…
[Link: data.bls.gov…]

The labor participation rate is in extended decline. That makes the unemployment numbers kinda fuzzy, as in understated.

230 lawhawk  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:52:16am

re: #166 Buck

You’re missing the point - the fact is that those making $1 million get a big break by only having to pay tax on the first $110,000 in FICA. That’s a break that on someone making $1 million would save them as follows:

7.65% on $1 million: $76,500
Cap on first $110,000: $8,415

Savings to the millionaire in not having to pay tax in excess of first $110,000: $68,085.

231 Wozza Matter?  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:52:22am

re: #221 talon_262

And they’re pissed off and scared shitless that some of what Obama laid out there may come to pass, especially if he wins the general and the Dems take back the House in November.

Even then he *still* won’t get around to taking peoples guns - because he’ll obviously be lining up for some as yet unnamed successor who’s leading the private army of FEMA guards……

232 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:52:27am

re: #215 Obdicut

For me it’s not so much the Israel-firster-ness of that, as the implication that Israel faces danger of annihilation more under Obama than they would under Gingrich.

The Adelsons may well believe that…the GOP has worked very hard to make it so.

The fact is, I suspect Gingrich would personally nuke Israel if it was between him and a sandwich he wanted, and also, I’m pretty damn sure Newt still doesn’t get the nomination, no matter how much money people give him.

The additional, fact, of course, is that people are allowed to donate money to the candidate of their choice for whatever reasons seems best to them.

233 Gus  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:52:45am

re: #228 Alouette

I only used purple font because we don’t have a moonbat font.

Wingnut also works for Greenwald. He needs his own font. ;)

234 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:53:16am

re: #230 lawhawk

The problem is, lawhawk, since the cap is $110,000 and not $1 million, the point is therefore invalidated. You need to brush up on your Buck-speak.

235 jamesfirecat  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:53:16am

re: #229 Rightwingconspirator

It’s fair because those are the jobs that need to be replaced to get employment to those good levels. Getting those (or that many) people back to work.

Of course none of those numbers are “clean” they are based on this…
[Link: data.bls.gov…]

The labor participation rate is in extended decline. That makes the unemployment numbers kinda fuzzy, as in understated.

It strikes of complaining about how Obama is rescuing us from Bush’s disaster fast enough given the context to me regardless of if the numbers are correct or not (which I don’t doubt they are)

236 CuriousLurker  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:53:44am

re: #215 Obdicut

For me it’s not so much the Israel-firster-ness of that, as the implication that Israel faces danger of annihilation more under Obama than they would under Gingrich.

Yeah, but if fits into the whole “Jews controlling the government” thing too. It just made me feel really leery reading it.

237 TedStriker  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:54:15am

re: #114 chunkymonkey

It’s a moonbat multifecta, whoo hoo!

It’s not our fault we’re actually talking sense, unlike you, rwmofo, and Buck, who are just pissing, moaning, and nitpicking over the SOTU and Obama in general.

Haters gonna hate…

238 Political Atheist  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:54:23am

re: #181 Charles

One more thing to remember-They both rated the speech very well overall. Much better than how they rated the GOP debate. That reduces my suspicions of any bias.

239 Wozza Matter?  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:55:27am

re: #12 rwmofo
??????

240 Political Atheist  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:56:16am

re: #235 jamesfirecat

It strikes of complaining about how Obama is rescuing us from Bush’s disaster fast enough given the context to me regardless of if the numbers are correct or not (which I don’t doubt they are)

That is a valid complaint given the slow pace of the recovery.

241 Flounder  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:56:47am

re: #230 lawhawk
If millionaires had to pay additional SS$, would they be able to draw additional social security above the $110,000 limit?

242 Political Atheist  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:57:28am

BBL

243 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:57:41am

re: #240 Rightwingconspirator

That is a valid complaint given the slow pace of the recovery.

Yes. We should have had a much, much larger stimulus package, and we should be doing a hell of a lot more spending now.

I’m not tempted to lay that at Obama’s feet, though he’s been far too conciliatory with the idiots who think cutting spending during a recession is a good idea. He’s staved off most of the damage from the attempts at austerity.

244 Interesting Times  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:57:50am

@SimonMaloy Simon Maloy
When Mitt parks millions in offshore accounts, he’s capitalism’s American hero. When FLOTUS wears a nice dress, she’s Marie Antoinette.

245 Gus  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:58:00am

re: #236 CuriousLurker

Yeah, but if fits into the whole “Jews controlling the government” thing too. It just made me feel really leery reading it.

Primarily and in this context all we need to know is that he’s supporting Newt Gingrich. He’s also an admirer of Glenn Beck.

246 CuriousLurker  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:58:06am

re: #226 Killgore Trout

Is there any validity to the story? I saw the link to Mondowiess and decided to stop reading.

The far left never stops feeding it. I see it every day. That’s the point, it adds to whatever’s already out there and Gingrich is an attention whore who will use anything.

247 Wozza Matter?  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:58:06am

re: #237 talon_262

It’s not our fault we’re actually talking sense, unlike you, rwmofo, and Buck, who are just pissing, moaning, and nitpicking over the SOTU and Obama in general.

Haters gonna hate…

248 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:58:10am

re: #226 Killgore Trout

Is there any validity to the story? I saw the link to Mondowiess and decided to stop reading.

Sure. Sheldon Adelson has a shitload of money, and being a Republican, he’s donated handsomely over the years to many Republican candidates, the RNC, etc.

His wife has now given five million bucks to one of the Newt’s SuperPacs. Newt, asked why (which is a bit of a dumbass question, it’s because they want him to win the nomination), brings up his lurrrve for Israel.

I expect that his lurrve for, you know, wealthy people, might also play a part, but I think he’s reading back the part that he thinks makes him sound better to voters.

249 leftynyc  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:58:38am

re: #93 chunkymonkey

Like, did an overwhelming majority of Americans even watch, listen to, or read the speech? I doubt it. That’s got to be right up there with the second most stupid poll result ever.

Ooooh - another bitter winger. I understand - watching your dreams go down the tubes is hard.

250 lawhawk  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:58:48am

re: #234 thedopefishlives

Another way to look at the FICA tax is that it is a flat tax with a specific allocation of revenue. Eliminate the cap on the first $110,000, and you can reduce the tax rate accordingly if you want to keep benefits same, or you can increase the benefits by the increased revenue generated by capturing that tax revenue above the prior cap.

Frankly, eliminating the cap to reduce the overall percentage makes sense. More take home pay, and benefits remain at the same or higher level (say reducing the 7.65% to 5% (or 4.5% of whatever it would be to generate the same revenues). Overall harm to the economy? Negligible? Potential benefits? As great or greater than the move to reduce the payroll tax on a temporary basis.

251 Romantic Heretic  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:58:54am

re: #72 pinkbunny

Typical rightwing bullshit dribbling out!

Having a background in economics and statistics, and working in manufacturing, I can tell you unequivocally, supply side economics is bunk! And that’s the technical term.

The biggest component for driving any economy is demand, and demand works more powerfully, if you have 90% of Americans with equitable income!

No matter how many tax cuts you throw at manufacturing companies, unless demand is there, we’re not going to produce more and thus increase output and hire workers.

Thank you! Well said.

252 makeitstop  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:59:14am

re: #232 SanFranciscoZionist

The fact is, I suspect Gingrich would personally nuke Israel if it was between him and a sandwich he wanted

I laughed out loud. Thank you.

253 jamesfirecat  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:59:25am

re: #240 Rightwingconspirator

That is a valid complaint given the slow pace of the recovery.

Yes, but every time someone brings it up, they should then have to admit that the only “alternative” to another four years of Obama is people preaching the same policies that wrecked our economy in the first place.

I mean that’s true isn’t it?

254 HoosierHoops  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 10:59:28am

re: #208 Killgore Trout

Pretty good list. Iran-contra killed the Reagan legacy for me.

You know what I remember from Iran-Contra hearings?
I was off work for about 2 weeks with my wife in Napa.. The TV was always on the hearings in the background.. We would be in bed eating food and drinking coffee..Making breakfast naked and blasting music..
Crazy sex at 4pm and dinner at midnight.. It was special..It was fun..Iran-Contra hearings rocked.
Heck..I see Ollie North on Fox late at night I start to get a hard on.
///

255 Douchecanoe and Ryan Too  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:00:59am

re: #240 Rightwingconspirator

That is a valid complaint given the slow pace of the recovery.

And exactly what would you do to make the recovery go faster? At least we’re recovering, that’s the important part. Not like we’re stuck in the Dark Ages like we would be with the Republicans.

256 PhillyPretzel  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:04:57am

In spite of what the more vocal and obnoxious Republicans are saying we are doing better and that SEAL rescue mission is a feather in Obama’s cap whether Republicans like it or not.

257 Lidane  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:06:24am

re: #256 PhillyPretzel

In spite of what the more vocal and obnoxious Republicans are saying we are doing better and that SEAL rescue mission is a feather in Obama’s cap whether Republicans like it or not.

So is bagging Osama, but they don’t want to give him that either.

258 William Barnett-Lewis  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:07:10am

re: #243 Obdicut

Yes. We should have had a much, much larger stimulus package, and we should be doing a hell of a lot more spending now.

I’m not tempted to lay that at Obama’s feet, though he’s been far too conciliatory with the idiots who think cutting spending during a recession is a good idea. He’s staved off most of the damage from the attempts at austerity.

QFT.

The stimulus should have be 3 to 4 times larger at a minimum.

259 PhillyPretzel  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:07:24am

re: #257 Lidane
Yes. That is the point. :)

260 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:07:46am

re: #248 SanFranciscoZionist

Sure. Sheldon Adelson has a shitload of money, and being a Republican, he’s donated handsomely over the years to many Republican candidates, the RNC, etc.

His wife has now given five million bucks to one of the Newt’s SuperPacs. Newt, asked why (which is a bit of a dumbass question, it’s because they want him to win the nomination), brings up his lurrrve for Israel.

I expect that his lurrve for, you know, wealthy people, might also play a part, but I think he’s reading back the part that he thinks makes him sound better to voters.

From ABC News: They’ve been Gingrich people since wayback:

The Gingrich Super PAC contributions are not the Adelsons’ first foray into the political realm. Prior to the recent Super PAC donations, they’ve given $7 million to Mr. Gingrich and his causes starting in the mid-1990’s, and contributed $500,000 to the second inauguration of President George W. Bush. They are also long-time and generous supporters of Israel. He donated $25 million to the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial, and since 2007 they have given $100 million to “Birthright Israel,” which finances Jewish youth trips to Israel.

Basically, they’re just very rich Jewish Republicans, a category of people who confuse me, but do exist. Newt’s PAC has other donors who’ve given him a cool million.

261 makeitstop  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:08:18am

re: #257 Lidane

So is bagging Osama, but they don’t want to give him that either.

And the best they’ve is a guy who keeps his money in off-shore accounts and a guy who was drummed out of Congress by his own party.

I’d be bitter, too.

262 Gus  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:08:57am

re: #246 CuriousLurker

The far left never stops feeding it. I see it every day. That’s the point, it adds to whatever’s already out there and Gingrich is an attention whore who will use anything.

The idea that Adelson’s backing of Gingrich represents “Israel’s control over the USA” is yet another conspiracy theory. Adelson is an American and he was born in Boston. His primary concern is Las Vegas and the hotel and gambling industry. Yes, his concerns about Israel are present but they’re not the only reasons for his support. And one can empathize with his concerns over Israel for obvious reasons even if we disagree with his particular stance. But that is not his primary concern.

263 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:09:56am

News flash: Jews control the government of Israel!!!

264 Decatur Deb  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:10:13am

re: #227 wlewisiii

I am surprised that I haven’t heard the Wingnuts complaining about Obama causing job losses openings in the Piracy sector…

///

Fixed

265 Lidane  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:11:37am

Looks like the GOP really is determined to suicide this year:

Poll: Gingrich Has Big Lead In Minnesota Caucuses — Which Romney Won In 2008

266 HoosierHoops  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:11:48am

re: #258 wlewisiii

QFT.

The stimulus should have be 3 to 4 times larger at a minimum.

Only if 80% of it would be strictly infrastructure investments…
At least when the money is spent America would be the most modern effen nation in the world.
America: The most high tech modern Country in the world.
I like the sound of that

267 Feline Fearless Leader  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:12:26am

re: #240 Rightwingconspirator

That is a valid complaint given the slow pace of the recovery.

Obama is doing the recovery slowly on purpose in order to get four more years in office to fix it before turning it over to the GOP to wreck again.
///
(He has a very high hourly rate and thus is dragging it out.)

268 Gus  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:12:36am

re: #263 ralphieboy

News flash: Jews control the government of Israel!!!

I like to think of it as Israelis controlling the government of Israel.

269 Lidane  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:13:48am

Also, those crazy moonbats in the Navy are still looking at alternative energy:

As GOP Pushes Keystone XL Oil Pipeline, Navy Pushes Solar Power

270 Wozza Matter?  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:14:01am

re: #266 HoosierHoops

Only if 80% of it would be strictly infrastructure investments…
At least when the money is spent America would be the most modern effen nation in the world.
America: The most high tech modern Country in the world.
I like the sound of that

80% infrastructure, 20% tax rebates for the worst off would have been a helluva boost if it had been that much bigger.

*sigh*

271 Gus  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:14:57am

re: #269 Lidane

Also, those crazy moonbats in the Navy are still looking at alternative energy:

As GOP Pushes Keystone XL Oil Pipeline, Navy Pushes Solar Power

What next? A peanut oil burning B-52?

//

272 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:15:37am

re: #270 wozzablog

The states needed a lot of money, especially the ones with GOP governors so they could lambaste Obama for spending so much money while claiming credit for jobs created.

273 CuriousLurker  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:15:51am

re: #260 SanFranciscoZionist

Basically, they’re just very rich Jewish Republicans, a category of people who confuse me, but do exist. Newt’s PAC has other donors who’ve given him a cool million.

re: #262 Gus 802

And one can empathize with his concerns over Israel for obvious reasons even if we disagree with his particular stance. But that is not his primary concern.

Yeah, I understand those things, though I honestly don’t know spit about Adelson. I’m just really skeeved out by the blatant racism & bigotry I’ve been seeing over the past couple of years, and now doubly concerned that someone as amoral as Gingrich is leading the pack now.

Maybe I’m overreacting and hearing dog whistles where none exist.

274 Feline Fearless Leader  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:16:58am

re: #271 Gus 802

What next? A peanut oil burning B-52?

//

Reactivating the USS Constitution of course. Wind Power!!!

275 Gus  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:17:19am

Uh oh! Wait for it! Another wingnut outrage coming in 3, 2, 1…

USDA issues new rules for school meals!!11ty

276 Vicious Babushka  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:17:52am

re: #273 CuriousLurker

re: #262 Gus 802

Yeah, I understand those things, though I honestly don’t know spit about Adelson. I’m just really skeeved out by the blatant racism & bigotry I’ve been seeing over the past couple of years, and now doubly concerned that someone as amoral as Gingrich is leading the pack now.

Maybe I’m overreacting and hearing dog whistles where none exist.

Sheldon Adelson is filthy stinking rich and also happens to be an Israelite-American but in no way controls United World Jewry.

That would be me, if I had Sheldon’s filthy stinking billions (but on me it would smell like Chanel)

277 Gus  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:18:29am

Another example of government tyranny taking over our lives! Marx, Darwin and Freud are at it again!

The meal programs, which feed about 32 million students in public and private schools, will have to reduce sodium, saturated fat and trans fats. Schools must also offer more whole grains as well as fat-free or low-fat milk varieties.

These standards go into effect July 1 and will be phased in over a three-year period, according to the USDA.

278 Gus  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:19:46am

ICYMI

@RightWingWatch Right Wing Watch
Liberty Counsel says secular humanism is a religion and that it even has its own Holy Trinity: Darwin, Marx, and Freud [Link: bit.ly…]

279 Gus  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:20:29am

In the name of the Darwin, the Marx, and the holy Freud. Amen.

//

280 Lidane  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:20:55am

re: #278 Gus 802

ICYMI

@RightWingWatch Right Wing Watch
Liberty Counsel says secular humanism is a religion and that it even has its own Holy Trinity: Darwin, Marx, and Freud [Link: bit.ly…]

ROFL. What a bunch of maroons.

281 PhillyPretzel  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:21:02am

re: #279 Gus 802
lol

282 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:21:18am

re: #278 Gus 802

So those guys are all secretly the same guy? Or does liberty counsel misunderstand what a trinity is? Weird for them to be confused about a religious concept.

283 jamesfirecat  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:21:28am

re: #278 Gus 802

ICYMI

@RightWingWatch Right Wing Watch
Liberty Counsel says secular humanism is a religion and that it even has its own Holy Trinity: Darwin, Marx, and Freud [Link: bit.ly…]

Sometimes an Austrian Doctor is just an Austrian Doctor.

284 Vicious Babushka  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:21:37am

re: #278 Gus 802

ICYMI

@RightWingWatch Right Wing Watch
Liberty Counsel says secular humanism is a religion and that it even has its own Holy Trinity: Darwin, Marx, and Freud [Link: bit.ly…]

What, no women? No Blacks? No Gays?

285 CuriousLurker  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:22:35am

re: #276 Alouette

Sheldon Adelson is filthy stinking rich and also happens to be an Israelite-American but in no way controls United World Jewry.

I know he doesn’t, but there are plenty of people who’ll believe he’s part of some Zionist conspiracy. I know don’t need to tell you that, I’m just saying. To me it’s reminiscent of the whole creeping Sharia/MB 5th column stuff.

That would be me, if I had Sheldon’s filthy stinking billions (but on me it would smell like Chanel)

LMAO!

Anyway, I have to get back to work. Later, Lizards.

286 Gus  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:22:40am

re: #284 Alouette

What, no women? No Blacks? No Gays?

Nope. Just three white guys. Again. Same old European patriarchy at work again!

//

287 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:22:45am

re: #263 ralphieboy

News flash: Jews control the government of Israel!!!

Well, mostly. There’s also some Arabs and Druze involved.

Also: In France, even the littlest children speak French.

288 Lidane  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:23:31am

re: #282 Obdicut

So those guys are all secretly the same guy? Or does liberty counsel misunderstand what a trinity is? Weird for them to be confused about a religious concept.

Seriously. They don’t seem to get that the Trinity concept is three aspects of the same single God, not three different Gods.

Alternatively, that could be a sign that they’re anti-Catholic, since one of the charges against Catholicism is that the Trinity is really polytheism in disguise.

289 Interesting Times  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:23:33am

@LOLGOP
Screwing teachers is not new for the Republican Party. Newt Gingrich has been doing it since the day he turned 18.

290 Wozza Matter?  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:23:41am

re: #272 Obdicut

The states needed a lot of money, especially the ones with GOP governors so they could lambaste Obama for spending so much money while claiming credit for jobs created.

I know.
The way it was done saved a helluva lot of police, teaching and fire jobs.

I don’t see that as true stimulus though - that was what needed to be done - there should have been a seperate states rescue package.

291 engineer cat  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:24:05am

RUSH: So I had a long, long, long day yesterday, and I’m arriving back at about, what was it, 9:30.  I’m landing at 9:30, I’d been watching the State of the Union show, that campaign speech for a half hour, and, folks, every e-mail I’m getting, “Well, that’s it, Rush. We can’t win. This is over. We can’t top this. It’s finished. My God, it’s over. We don’t have a prayer. This is so good, he’s giving away the store. Americans are such idiots, gonna fall for it.”  I had to shut down my e-mail because I’m listening to the most vacuous, empty, filled-with-lies speech.  It was boring.  It was actually boring. 

292 Feline Fearless Leader  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:24:17am

re: #279 Gus 802

In the name of the Darwin, the Marx, and the holy Freud. Amen.

//

Is the Holy Freud normally illustrated as a vaguely phallic cloud of cigar smoke?

With the triple image being a heavily bearded monkey smoking a cigar and wearing a bowler hat.
/

293 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:24:41am

re: #273 CuriousLurker

re: #262 Gus 802

Yeah, I understand those things, though I honestly don’t know spit about Adelson. I’m just really skeeved out by the blatant racism & bigotry I’ve been seeing over the past couple of years, and now doubly concerned that someone as amoral as Gingrich is leading the pack now.

Maybe I’m overreacting and hearing dog whistles where none exist.

No, I think you can pretty much bank on this being picked up and used by certain people in an unpleasant way. And of course, for Newt, if it works, it will become a thing.

:(

Eh, whatever.

294 Jimmah  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:24:58am

Watched the SOTU address this morning and almost felt bad for the wingnuts. Here we have Obama whose obvious intellectual and moral authority effortlessly dwarfs and shames EVERYTHING the repukelicans have to offer…

On the other hand we have the sad cavalcade of some smelly old white wingnuts grumbling about commies, women (and their bizarre aversion to the idea of bearing rape-babies), gays and the under representation of christianity (read christian wingnuttery) in society. They’ve lost already, and they know it.

296 Jalal bin Smokin?  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:28:25am

re: #295 Lidane

Billionaire Bill Gates Calls For Increasing Taxes On The Rich: ‘That’s Just Justice’

Oh, this should be fun.

Great, now wing nuts are going to install Linux en mass.

297 jamesfirecat  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:28:38am

re: #288 Lidane

Seriously. They don’t seem to get that the Trinity concept is three aspects of the same single God, not three different Gods.

Alternatively, that could be a sign that they’re anti-Catholic, since one of the charges against Catholicism is that the Trinity is really polytheism in disguise.

They must be using “trinity” in the same sense that DC uses it to describe Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman…

298 Decatur Deb  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:28:55am

re: #271 Gus 802

What next? A peanut oil burning B-52?

//

Southern Alabama says “go for it”. (Branson has already flown a biofueled jet, derived from algae IIRC.)

299 Wozza Matter?  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:29:56am

laters all. painpills just kicked in.

300 engineer cat  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:30:45am

rush explain why teamwork am bad!!

This speech was so filled with contradictions.  He talked about teamwork is what made America great?  Teamwork?  Do you know, ladies and gentlemen, how wrong that is?  Do you know what our founding documents are about?  The rights and freedom of the individual versus government.  There’s nothing about teamwork.  There’s nothing about compromise, getting along and working together.  The whole point of this government, the whole point of this country, the whole point of this founding was to champion the power and the rights and the civil rights and the freedoms and the liberty of the individual over government…

and fairness am socialism

This is worth two grand slams, this whole concept of teamwork, when this country was premised on the power, the rights of the individual, on the uniqueness of all of us, that we are different, that we all bring different things.  Then there was this, whatever we do, we gotta have fairness.  There must be fairness.  That’s a code word for class warfare.  Fairness is in the liberal dictionary, and it gives them the opportunity, the right, the power to redistribute wealth.  That’s what fairness is. 

…

301 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:31:38am

re: #300 engineer dog

The founding fathers didn’t work together at all. It was all individual action.

302 Feline Fearless Leader  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:33:20am

re: #301 Obdicut

The founding fathers didn’t work together at all. It was all individual action.

Which is why they all hung separately.
Oh wait…

303 engineer cat  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:37:18am

“An America Built To Last”

now, that’s a slogan!

304 Romantic Heretic  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:38:33am

re: #296 mracb

Great, now wing nuts are going to install Linux en mass.

Good. they’ll be too busy arguing with that to get into trouble.

305 kirkspencer  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:38:43am

re: #300 engineer dog

That’s why there’s no “we” in the constitution.

Oh, wait…
///

306 simoom  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:39:28am

re: #22 Buck

Will he actually fill in the details on how he is going to force every student to stay in school until they are 18? The idea sounds good, BUT the details are missing. Punish the offenders? How? Chain them to their desks? Lock them in the school? Put them in jail?

I’m not sure, but don’t different states currently have varying ages at which children are allowed to drop out of school, and if they stop showing up each state has varying penalties (truancy officers, fines, legal penalties, etc)? It would seem you could do something as simple as make the dropout age 18 federally and still allow the states choose individually how to incentivize attendance and punish truancy.

307 BongCrodny  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:40:47am

re: #291 engineer dog

RUSH: So I had a long, long, long day yesterday, and I’m arriving back at about, what was it, 9:30.  I’m landing at 9:30, I’d been watching the State of the Union show, that campaign speech for a half hour, and, folks, every e-mail I’m getting, “Well, that’s it, Rush. We can’t win. This is over. We can’t top this. It’s finished. My God, it’s over. We don’t have a prayer. This is so good, he’s giving away the store. Americans are such idiots, gonna fall for it.”  I had to shut down my e-mail because I’m listening to the most vacuous, empty, filled-with-lies speech.  It was boring.  It was actually boring. 

Three words for Rush.

Boo fucking hoo.

308 Buck  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:42:07am

re: #97 McSpiff

My modest proposal:

“For taxation purposes, the primary income source is treated as personal earnings (wages).”

Making $100k a year as a doctor + another $20k from stocks? Great, existing rules apply.

You’re Mittens and make 100% of your income from investments? Taxed as income instead of capital gains.

Cons to this approach?

What about pension funds and Unions who have their dues invested?

Also 30%…. lol I doubt that.

309 sattv4u2  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:44:52am

re: #97 McSpiff

re: #308 Buck

What about pension funds and Unions who have their dues invested?

Also 30%… lol I doubt that.

Not to mention it comes with it’s own “loophole”

You’re Mittens and make 100% of your income from investments? Taxed as income instead of capital gains.

All someone like Romney would do is earn 1% as regularly taxed income!

310 Buck  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:45:03am

re: #306 simoom

I’m not sure, but don’t different states currently have varying ages at which children are allowed to drop out of school, and if they stop showing up each state has varying penalties (truancy officers, fines, legal penalties, etc)? It would seem you could do something as simple as make the dropout age 18 federally and still allow the states choose individually how to incentivize attendance and punish truancy.

Treat a 17 year old like a 12 year old? You don’t see a problem? How about a federal law that pushes (without any funding) the states to figure out the details?

Again, it sounded good. But like all “Big Idea” people, zero follow through.

311 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:46:06am

re: #310 Buck

All big idea people having zero follow through is one of the more obviously stupidly wrong things you’ve ever said.

312 jamesfirecat  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:47:23am

re: #310 Buck

Treat a 17 year old like a 12 year old? You don’t see a problem? How about a federal law that pushes (without any funding) the states to figure out the details?

Again, it sounded good. But like all “Big Idea” people, zero follow through.

You’re blaming Obama for not following through on ideas he just proposed yesterday. Just felt I should point that out.

313 engineer cat  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:48:34am

re: #308 Buck

What about pension funds and Unions who have their dues invested?

Also 30%… lol I doubt that.

so what’s your argument? that it might not be easy? like we didn’t know that already?

314 sattv4u2  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:48:46am

SO,,,,,, come to find out this morning, there’s been an unauthorized PayPal withdrawal from a a Money Market acct we have tied to our checking acct (to avoid a monthly fee)

Oh ,,, joy!!

315 zora  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:50:31am

re: #288 Lidane

Seriously. They don’t seem to get that the Trinity concept is three aspects of the same single God, not three different Gods.

Alternatively, that could be a sign that they’re anti-Catholic, since one of the charges against Catholicism is that the Trinity is really polytheism in disguise.

i think they get the trinity and believe in the trinity. it just doesn’t correlate well for their insulting purposes and it shouldn’t.

316 zora  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:52:17am

re: #289 publicityStunted

@LOLGOP
Screwing teachers is not new for the Republican Party. Newt Gingrich has been doing it since the day he turned 18.

since he was 16 according to marianne. so it was really the teacher / future wife’s fault, imo.

317 simoom  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:53:55am

re: #310 Buck

Treat a 17 year old like a 12 year old? You don’t see a problem? How about a federal law that pushes (without any funding) the states to figure out the details?

Again, it sounded good. But like all “Big Idea” people, zero follow through.

I don’t know the details of the President’s proposal, but there are all sorts of studies that show a huge impact from staying in school and graduating (lifetime earnings, incarceration rates, gang involvement, health issues). I suppose you could earmark some money for the states to help them pay for enforcement but you could easily see this sort of policy more than paying for itself w/ respect future state expenditures.

318 Political Atheist  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:55:21am

re: #253 jamesfirecat

& DopeFishLives

Yes, but every time someone brings it up, they should then have to admit that the only “alternative” to another four years of Obama is people preaching the same policies that wrecked our economy in the first place.

I mean that’s true isn’t it?

Sure one conversation is about the election. Another (more what I have in mind) is economic suggestions brought up by the Pres. last night that he should have at least tried to implement 1st year, arguably right after swearing in. But alas, other things took the legislative priority.

319 Buck  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:56:15am

re: #311 Obdicut

All big idea people having zero follow through is one of the more obviously stupidly wrong things you’ve ever said.

Now who is nit picking? I mean the big idea people who don’t follow through.

Look this speech was a serious retread of the previous speeches, especially if you count the campaign speeches.

If President Obama wants to raise taxes on everyone who earns one million dollars, then he should do it. He hasn’t even tried. All he does is talk about it. And he has been talking about raising taxes on everyone who earns over $250K for a long time.

You think he couldn’t get the Democrat Senate to at least write the bill and pass it? Send it to the House and have them vote it down, if only to prove a point. Why not? Because the devil is in the details. Double the cap gains tax rate? Even Democrats in the Senate wont pass that.

320 jamesfirecat  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:57:09am

re: #319 Buck

Now who is nit picking? I mean the big idea people who don’t follow through.

Look this speech was a serious retread of the previous speeches, especially if you count the campaign speeches.

If President Obama wants to raise taxes on everyone who earns one million dollars, then he should do it. He hasn’t even tried. All he does is talk about it. And he has been talking about raising taxes on everyone who earns over $250K for a long time.

You think he couldn’t get the Democrat Senate to at least write the bill and pass it? Send it to the House and have them vote it down, if only to prove a point. Why not? Because the devil is in the details. Double the cap gains tax rate? Even Democrats in the Senate wont pass that.

For the democratic senate to pass something it would have to overcome the Republican filibuster.

321 Buck  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:57:33am

re: #317 simoom

I don’t know the details of the President’s proposal

That is my whole point. No one does. See my #22.

322 simoom  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:58:10am

re: #319 Buck

Congress doesn’t really need to do anything, just continue with their gridlock and the taxcuts will eventually expire on their own.

323 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 11:59:12am

re: #319 Buck

Now who is nit picking? I mean the big idea people who don’t follow through.

Yeah, but then you need to actually prove Obama is such a dude. What you said is something about all big ideas guys that was patently, stupidly false.

f President Obama wants to raise taxes on everyone who earns one million dollars, then he should do it. He hasn’t even tried.

You’re such a liar. He begged, begged the Democrats to raise taxes on upper incomes when they had the house and senate. They didn’t. You have no fucking clue what you’re talking about and, as usual, have no actual knowledge of US politics.. Just whatever the fuck conservative pundits are saying.

What a joke.

324 sattv4u2  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 12:00:13pm

re: #317 simoom

1st step (imho),, bring back the trade schools at the high school level

A student would still have to take/ pass the core classes, but instead of taking (lets say) French they would instead take plumbing, or carpentry, or auto mechanics, ,,, something of interest to them that they would want to show up for.

I recall my friends who went to the Vocational High School also would apprentice with (a pro in whatever field) during summer vacations

Yes ,, i know there are still some out there (Vocational High Schools) but they aren’t as plentiful as they once were. Somewhere along the line it became almost a mandate that every student had to be prepped for college.

325 Political Atheist  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 12:02:19pm

Well the Fed announcement on interest rates has spiked metals big time. Thanks boyz. Crap.

326 Buck  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 12:04:03pm

re: #323 Obdicut

He begged, begged the Democrats to raise taxes on upper incomes when they had the house and senate. They didn’t.

You mean he could not even get Democrats to go along with him?

I think that is what I am saying all along.

He has the benefit of saying stuff, without any follow through, that sounds good but he knows has no chance of passing. And not only because of Republicans. Because they are (bi partisan) bad ideas.

327 Lidane  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 12:05:41pm

re: #326 Buck

So basically, you still don’t have anything of substance to add to the conversation.

Par for the course.

328 Buck  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 12:06:18pm

re: #323 Obdicut

Yeah, but then you need to actually prove Obama is such a dude. What you said is something about all big ideas guys that was patently, stupidly false.

Look, if you can’t follow the thread, it is not my fault. I shouldn’t have to carry the entire discussion with me and post everything in every comment. I don’t need to prove Obama is such a dude, I just have to give my opinion, and back it up with examples.

329 Buck  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 12:06:57pm

re: #327 Lidane

So basically, you still don’t have anything of substance to add to the conversation.

Par for the course.

My #22 was done to add to the conversation, and the rest is just defending that.

330 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 12:07:12pm

re: #326 Buck

You mean he could not even get Democrats to go along with him?

Yes, he’s not a king.

I think that is what I am saying all along.

Nope. It’s the inverse of the shit you’re peddling.

He has the benefit of saying stuff, without any follow through, that sounds good but he knows has no chance of passing.

It has every chance of passing. The GOP didn’t used to be this fucking insane. They can come to their senses.

Or do you think the GOP is really irretrievably lost in obstructionism, bigotry, and Ayn Rand economics?

331 DeepBlue  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 12:07:12pm

How about capital gain tax rates are graduated? e.g. the first 100K is at 10%, next 100K at 15% & then 20% (you pick the numbers). Now the little old lady from pasadena doesn’t have her rainy day fund taxed at high rate & capital is still encouraged (don’t tell me that mittens life would be injured or capital would flee if rate changed from 15% to 20%). I’d really like someone to explain to me how wonderful it is to have mittens next incremental dollar in cayman offshore swiss bank account capital gains is helping the betterment of society better than the next incremental dollar of someone working for minimum wage. Until the bottom can get out of poverty, living wage & viability they should pay little tax - even employment. This could be indexed to unemployment rate. High unemployment -> little employment taxes -> lower cost of labor -> reduced unemployment while low unemployment -> higher employment taxes -> etc. It’s got to be better to employ more people up to some frictional rate. ()

332 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 12:08:02pm

re: #328 Buck

In what way am I not following the thread, please?

Your claim: Obama is saying things that are great, but he can’t achieve them, because GOP congress will block all that’s necessary to get the ideas done.

That about right?

333 jamesfirecat  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 12:08:37pm

re: #331 DeepBlue

How about capital gain tax rates are graduated? e.g. the first 100K is at 10%, next 100K at 15% & then 20% (you pick the numbers). Now the little old lady from pasadena doesn’t have her rainy day fund taxed at high rate & capital is still encouraged (don’t tell me that mittens life would be injured or capital would flee if rate changed from 15% to 20%). I’d really like someone to explain to me how wonderful it is to have mittens next incremental dollar in cayman offshore swiss bank account capital gains is helping the betterment of society better than the next incremental dollar of someone working for minimum wage. Until the bottom can get out of poverty, living wage & viability they should pay little tax - even employment. This could be indexed to unemployment rate. High unemployment -> little employment taxes -> lower cost of labor -> reduced unemployment while low unemployment -> higher employment taxes -> etc. It’s got to be better to employ more people up to some frictional rate. ()

Your ideals intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter! (Serious)

334 Lidane  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 12:08:54pm

re: #329 Buck

My #22 was done to add to the conversation, and the rest is just defending that.

Translation: You offered nothing but idiocy and fail in #22 and have been trying desperately to spin it since.

Try harder next time.

335 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 12:08:58pm

re: #331 DeepBlue

Oh, and congrats on beating that Russian at chess.

336 jamesfirecat  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 12:09:16pm

re: #332 Obdicut

In what way am I not following the thread, please?

Your claim: Obama is saying things that are great, but he can’t achieve them, because GOP congress will block all that’s necessary to get the ideas done.

That about right?

Also Obama won’t waste his time personally writing up the bills for the GOP to block.

337 sattv4u2  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 12:10:31pm

re: #333 jamesfirecat

Your ideals intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter! (Serious)

Just send me a check or money order for $19.99

But WAIT, there’s MORE ,, if you call in the next 15 minutes he’ll send you TWO Sham WOWS !!

338 sattv4u2  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 12:11:35pm

re: #336 jamesfirecat

Also Obama won’t waste his time personally writing up the bills for the GOP to block.

Yeah ,, that would seriously cut into his golf time!!

//

339 sattv4u2  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 12:12:32pm

And on that note ,,,,, SEEYA!

340 Kaessa  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 12:16:23pm

re: #324 sattv4u2

My son is lucky enough to have this at his school. He’s been taking welding courses up at the community college (free of charge) for half the day for his junior and senior year. He’s going to come out of high school with some significant welding experience, and hopefully be able to land a decent job right out of school.

341 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 12:16:54pm

re: #340 Kaessa

A good welder will never want for work.

342 DeepBlue  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 12:16:55pm

Ok, some more on ‘full-er employment’ … during times like these, the companies that can & do employ lots of people (WalMart, McDonalds, etc.) would gain significantly as labor prices would drop (due to reduction in taxes - a greeter in every isle) whereas during full-employment the costs would be higher. The problem isn’t the government nor the free market (which isn’t free nor should it be), the problem is that regulation is non-optimized for the problems at hand. Government should use taxes to ‘tune’ the free-market for the benefits of society and to deal with the inadequacies of the market (externalities (e.g. pollution), tragedy of the commons, monopolies, inadequate planning/savings, self-policing (?BP), etc.)

343 Kaessa  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 12:18:43pm

re: #341 Obdicut

That’s what we’re hoping. He’s not really the college type, but he took to welding like a duck to water.

344 Buck  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 12:25:55pm

re: #332 Obdicut

In what way am I not following the thread, please?

Your claim: Obama is saying things that are great, but he can’t achieve them, because GOP congress will block all that’s necessary to get the ideas done.

That about right?

Nope. Not at all. I was very specific. For example I said:

And then nothing. It will never happen. Not because Republicans wont vote for it. It will be because no one will write a bill that says everyone who earns a million dollars a year (or more) doesn’t get tax deductions.

Even you point out that Democrats wouldn’t vote for it.

In my #22 I didn’t say the ideas were great. I called them pie in the sky. I said that they lacked any details. BECAUSE the details would kill them, they never get put in a bill. Just speeches….

345 Buck  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 12:28:07pm

Anyway, I will be gone at the end of this month. A bit more than a 2 week holiday with no internet.

You will miss me…

346 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 12:28:42pm

re: #344 Buck

And then nothing. It will never happen. Not because Republicans wont vote for it. It will be because no one will write a bill that says everyone who earns a million dollars a year (or more) doesn’t get tax deductions.

Do you think the GOP would vote yes on a bill adding, say, 3% to the income tax of those making above $250,000?

Or vote yes on a bill taking away many of the tax breaks on those making above $1,000,000?

Even you point out that Democrats wouldn’t vote for it.

what is wrong with your head? At one specific point in history, the Democrats didn’t vote for it. So for some fucking reason you think that will never change? The GOP will never change? This is how it is forever?

What is wrong with you?

347 Political Atheist  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 12:29:33pm

re: #343 Kaessa

In addition to a welding trade job he might really like metallurgy. Which goes great for really tough really well paid welding jobs like aerospace/aviation materials.

348 Political Atheist  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 12:34:16pm

re: #336 jamesfirecat

He has plenty of staff for that.

349 Political Atheist  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 12:42:50pm

re: #25 Alouette

You think that Warren Buffet’s secretary is the only low-paid worker in the entire USA who pays tax at a higher rate than her boss?

I am certain that capitol gains and salary income need not have the same tax chart. Show me the economic argument to use a secretary’s (as a typical income) taxes to determine capitol gains rates. I think you will see that is a partisan or perhaps emotional argument not a sound economic one. I also think you should ask yourself why Obama largely ignored his own jobs council advice on this very subject.

350 Kaessa  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 12:50:05pm

re: #347 Rightwingconspirator

I’ll point that out to him, thanks!

351 Buck  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 12:51:47pm

re: #346 Obdicut

Do you think the GOP would vote yes on a bill adding, say, 3% to the income tax of those making above $250,000?

Or vote yes on a bill taking away many of the tax breaks on those making above $1,000,000?

First of all, no one has even tried those things. When the Ryan Budget passed the House, and was sent to the Senate. They could have easily made that little change (3%), voted on it, and sent it back to the house.

They didn’t do anything except kill it (on arrival).

what is wrong with your head? At one specific point in history, the Democrats didn’t vote for it. So for some fucking reason you think that will never change? The GOP will never change? This is how it is forever?

Well, I am stating my opinion. Yes, both democrats and republicans feel that raising taxes during a recession is a bad idea. (even Bill Clinton has been quoted saying so)

However you (and many other partisan Dems) keep wanting to blame “the GOP” like they are the boogie man.

No one wants to own “raising taxes”. That is why the President voted to extend the Bush tax Cuts.

What is wrong with you?

You know what? You don’t like it when other people make the debate personal about you. Maybe you should try to stop doing it to others.

352 chunkymonkey  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 12:56:35pm

re: #145 Obdicut

No, it’s not. The payments started before the taxes were even collected.

It has an element of paying back what you put in, but it’s not a savings account.

I knows dat, I’m just telling you what your average American seems to think. Anyone I’ve ever talked to about SS will tell you what I told you, and they’re all Democrats.

Is ignorance of the reason why we have social programs necessary in order to make these facile arguments, or do you actually know the reasons but choose to ignore them when making your case because it’s so inconvenient?

Neither, see above. Don’t forget to tell me about the Social Security Trust Fund. Amazing how something can exist and not exist at the same time!

353 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 12:57:08pm

re: #351 Buck

First of all, no one has even tried those things. When the Ryan Budget passed the House, and was sent to the Senate. They could have easily made that little change (3%), voted on it, and sent it back to the house.

See. This is the kind of insanity I”m talking about. What the fuck does the Ryan budget have anything to do with anything? That piece of craptastic, stupid, cruel, fictional legislation?

What on earth are you talking about?

You know what? You don’t like it when other people make the debate personal about you. Maybe you should try to stop doing it to others.

Pretty much just you, Buck. After you attempted to imply I had sympathy for pedophiles because I myself had been raped as a child, you made it into a special category of complete shithead.

354 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 12:57:43pm

re: #352 chunkymonkey

I knows dat, I’m just telling you what your average American seems to think.

No, you weren’t. Please, you just make yourself look like a fool by trying to pull that crap.

355 [deleted]  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 1:00:13pm
356 [deleted]  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 1:01:16pm
357 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 1:01:25pm

re: #355 chunkymonkey

Heh. Poor little guy.

358 Obdicut  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 1:02:28pm

re: #356 chunkymonkey

Yes, I was. Believe what you want, but that doesn’t change the truth.

Sure. the truth remains the same. This is what you said:

That’s just stupid. SS is supposed to be a system in which you get back what you pay in.

And now you’re spinning.

Obvious. And you think anyone will fall for it.

359 Decatur Deb  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 1:09:40pm

re: #343 Kaessa

That’s what we’re hoping. He’s not really the college type, but he took to welding like a duck to water.

It takes, like, a really good welder to weld a duck to water.

360 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 1:10:48pm

re: #359 Decatur Deb

It takes, like, a really good welder to weld a duck to water.

Eh. All it takes’ a freezer.
/

361 Decatur Deb  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 1:14:08pm

re: #347 Rightwingconspirator

In addition to a welding trade job he might really like metallurgy. Which goes great for really tough really well paid welding jobs like aerospace/aviation materials.

There are Nuclear Regulatory Commission certified welders who weld under-water at the plants. They do well.

362 Kaessa  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 1:15:50pm

re: #359 Decatur Deb

It takes, like, a really good welder to weld a duck to water.

I really, really needed that laugh. Thanks. :)

363 Charles Johnson  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 1:18:02pm

re: #352 chunkymonkey

So long. I let you continue posting even though you were banned before, but now that you’re getting nasty and insulting, I will bid you adieu. Again.

364 TedStriker  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 1:46:09pm

re: #345 Buck

Anyway, I will be gone at the end of this month. A bit more than a 2 week holiday with no internet.

You will miss me…

As often as I and others here think you’re dead wrong on many things, you’re partial proof that LGF is no echo chamber.

/for what it’s worth

365 deadletterboy  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 2:28:32pm

Not sure if anyone has pointed it out yet, but that poll is from last years speech.

366 deadletterboy  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 2:29:11pm

Unless the date is wrong on the site…

367 Charles Johnson  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 2:43:26pm

re: #365 deadletterboy

Not sure if anyone has pointed it out yet, but that poll is from last years speech.

You’re right! I found the link at Memeorandum where several other sites had already linked to it. I’ll add a correction.

368 Buck  Wed, Jan 25, 2012 5:36:24pm

re: #353 Obdicut

After you attempted to imply I had sympathy for pedophiles because I myself had been raped as a child, you made it into a special category of complete shithead.

Just so everyone knows, this never happened. Never ever. AND Obdicut knows this, as I have made it clear multiple times.

I have tried to explain myself, and clear up the misunderstanding, but he simply ignores that, and just keeps posting the lies, the misquotes, and the paraphrasing (made up stuff).

Clearly, every time he feels backed into a corner, he will repeat this slander. I can’t stop that. BUT I want to be clear that he is NOT telling the truth, he is name calling, and bullying. I have reported this to Charles. I am hoping that others will recognize this for what it is, and realize how wrong this behaviour is.

369 Obdicut  Thu, Jan 26, 2012 9:33:42am

re: #368 Buck

It happened. I’m fine with putting my word up against yours. You tried to smear me by saying I believed children could consent to sex, and implied that because I was raped, I had issues around the subject that was making me think unclearly.

I’m not going to stop saying it. It’s not bullying to call you on your stupid shit.

Don’t want to be called on asshole behavior? Don’t act like an asshole. And don’t whine about me bullying you when you pulled sick, sick shit like that.

370 Buck  Thu, Jan 26, 2012 11:15:14am

re: #369 Obdicut

It happened. I’m fine with putting my word up against yours.

It simply did not happen, not in any way.

You say I “attempted to imply”. As if you know what I was attempting to do. I didn’t attempt anything of the sort.

It was the most idiotic conversation we have ever had, and that is saying a lot. You were insisting that no man on the planet, who had ever changed in a public locker room, could know with certainty that the picture (that we know know was Weiner) couldn’t be them. I insisted that I could state with certainty that is was not me, despite that fact that I had changed in a public locker room. I explained (multiple times) that I would never allow someone to point a camera at me while I changed. I even went so far to show you that often cell phones are banned form locker rooms, but even if a person tried to point his cell phone camera at my crotch I would object and call security.

I explained (multiple times) that it was not only for my modesty, but that children might be changing as well. You continued to make it seem like it was no big deal if people did this sort of thing, explaining that the person might be just “checking his email”. As if that would be a good excuse.

I then finally expressed my concern that you were not seeing the big picture. That you were not understanding the risk as I was trying to explain it.

You stated:
“Someone takes out their cellphone in the lockerroom and snaps a picture while pretending to check his email.”
and
“I’m sorry, but if someone is holding their phone (in a locker room) and it’s pointed in my direction, I don’t leap to the conclusion that they’re taking pictures of my crotch.”

So I asked the QUESTION:

Frankly you are getting more and more weird about this. Almost like you are defending the use of a camera phone in a locker room where there might be children in various states of undress. Is that intentional?

This is the sentence that you will not let go of. Despite my explaining that I was simply trying to clear up what YOU were saying.

No one has to take my word on this. That sentence does not attempt to imply that you had sympathy for pedophiles because you had been raped as a child. It does nothing of the sort, not in any language.

I did NOT attempt to imply anything at all, except maybe that you were in such a rush to disagree with me, that you were not seeing the big picture, that I was trying to explain.

I am telling you this AGAIN. You keep making this purposeful lie about me. You keep making this claim, expressly stating it to be factual. It is not. It is defamatory, malicious and damagingly misrepresents.

Anyone who wants to try and read what I think was the most stupid discussion ever, can do so here

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

371 Obdicut  Thu, Jan 26, 2012 11:25:11am

re: #370 Buck

No, I was talking about the other time you attempted to smear me over the issue of pedophilia. I’d forgotten about this other crappy, assholic allegation you made— thanks for reminding me of it. The conversation I’m referring to, obviously, is the one where the subject was about statutory rape.

But sure, let’s take the conversation you just referenced:

Frankly you are getting more and more weird about this. Almost like you are defending the use of a camera phone in a locker room where there might be children in various states of undress. Is that intentional?

So yeah, anyone can read that. They can read you asking me if I’m intentionally defending the use of a camera phone to take pictures when naked children around.

372 Buck  Thu, Jan 26, 2012 11:49:36am

re: #371 Obdicut

I never “attempted” to smear you over the issue of pedophilia.

It simply never happened.

What I think you are NOW referring to is when we disagreed over what the word “consent” meant in relation to child rape. Again, At no time did I attempt to imply that you had sympathy for pedophiles because you had been raped as a child.

Did I disagree with you about what consent meant? Yes. Did I know that you were raped as a child? No. Does that change my opinion about what “consent” in this context means? No.

At no time did I attempt to imply that you had sympathy for pedophiles because you had been raped as a child.

It never happened.

However you continue (even today) to libel me on that subject. You bring it up, not me.

373 Obdicut  Thu, Jan 26, 2012 12:05:08pm

re: #372 Buck

Yeah Buck. Throw yourself behind defending this accusation:

Only in your mind is there is CONSENSUAL statutory rape.

I’m happy for anyone to read that thread and come to their own conclusion. IN it, you claim all rape is inherently violent. I point out the many kinds of rape that aren’t violent, you lose your shit and dig yourself an enormous hole, where you wallow in it. And where a lot of other people try to talk sense to you, too.

And it’s all in the context of the GOP trying to change the definition of rape to solely include violent rape— that’s why you twisted yourself into knots trying to say that all rape was violent. To defend the GOP’s attempt to make abortion access harder for rape victims.

You really are an amazing piece of work. I can never tell if you buy your own sanctimonious bullshit.

Here’s the whole thread:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com…]

Your statements were pathetic and creepy, and seen so not just by me, but by everyone else reading the conversation.

374 Buck  Thu, Jan 26, 2012 1:08:49pm

re: #373 Obdicut

Throw yourself behind defending this accusation:

No problem. It is a quote out of context, BUT as I said, we disagreed with what the word consent means. You said children could consent, I said they couldn’t.

WE still disagree with what the word consent means when it comes to children and their adult rapists.

HOWEVER this has nothing to do with you being raped, or having “sympathy for pedophiles” (your words not mine).
That is the stuff you added. This is the stuff you made up in your mind. That is in YOUR head. You might feel that I said things that I clearly did not. You might imagine that I attempted to imply anything you want, but I didn’t.

I think what you said was creepy, and you think what I said was pathetic and creepy. Fine. BUT that is not what you are accusing me of when you state as fact that I attempted to imply that you had sympathy for pedophiles because you had been raped as a child. I didn’t do that. You might feel that I did. You might imagine that I did, but I didn’t. It is not enough for you to have the impression, or belief. When you make such a horrible accusation you should be able to back it up with more than

You had no reason to even bring it up here. There is no connection between that old discussion (where we disagreed over the meaning of consent with regards to children and their adult rapists) and the topic today. I can see no reason for you to make this libelous statement other than your projecting false accusations, information, etc., onto me for the sole purpose of maintaining a self-created illusion.

375 Obdicut  Thu, Jan 26, 2012 1:24:18pm

re: #374 Buck

You said children could consent, I said they couldn’t.

I said it didn’t matter if a child consented, actually.

Buck, I know you’d rather that your past transgressions be forgotten, but it’s really useless of you to ask me to stop bringing up this stuff. Whenever you accuse me of personal attacks, I’m going to remind people of what a creep you are. That’s all.

Bitch about it all you want.

376 Buck  Thu, Jan 26, 2012 1:36:18pm

re: #375 Obdicut

I said it didn’t matter if a child consented, actually.

Yes, you said that as well as saying that a child could consent. You added that it wouldn’t matter in the eyes of the law. However you and I disagreed over (no matter what the law thought) if a child could consent to sex with an adult. I said they could not, you said they could (but that it wouldn’t matter in the eyes of the law).

AGAIN, that is in NO WAY attempting to imply that you had sympathy for pedophiles because you had been raped as a child.

In your mind what I said was a transgression. I don’t see it that way, so no, it is untrue to say that I would rather that my past transgressions be forgotten. You are still very bad at telling me what I want.

I would prefer that things are not made up and thrown at me as if they were the truth.

Again, I want to be clear that you are NOT telling the truth, that you are name calling, and bullying. I will continue to defend myself from your lies. I will continue to report this to Charles. I am hoping that others will recognize this for what it is, and realize how wrong your behaviour is.

377 wrenchwench  Thu, Jan 26, 2012 1:40:54pm

re: #376 Buck

If you don’t want to continue to look like a jerk, you should drop this. I saw the original discussion. You were a jerk then and you’re a jerk trying to rehash it now. Obviously you aren’t going to come to an agreement, but what is clear is that he’s not ‘making things up’.

378 Obdicut  Thu, Jan 26, 2012 1:42:48pm

re: #376 Buck

I am hoping that others will recognize this for what it is, and realize how wrong your behaviour is.

How’s that working out for you?

379 Buck  Thu, Jan 26, 2012 1:43:19pm

re: #378 Obdicut

How’s that working out for you?

Said the bully.

380 Obdicut  Thu, Jan 26, 2012 1:49:46pm

re: #379 Buck

Do you consider calling someone a bully ‘namecalling’?

Let me guess: No, because it’s true!

What a joke.

381 jamesfirecat  Thu, Jan 26, 2012 3:29:06pm

re: #379 Buck

Said the bully.

In what way is he bullying you Buck?

382 Buck  Thu, Jan 26, 2012 6:09:53pm

re: #380 Obdicut

Do you consider calling someone a bully ‘namecalling’?

I am pointing it out as you are doing it.

You started to make this personal by saying “What is wrong with you?”

I maintain that anyone should be able to have a discussion on a topic without trying to make like there is something wrong with the person they are talking to.

My #22 was simply me trying to add to the discussion by not only stating my opinion, but including examples to back up what I was saying.

IMO you crossed the line when, for no reason at all, you said that I attempted to imply that you had sympathy for pedophiles because you had been raped as a child.

First it is simply untrue, but secondly it is so horrible an accusation that it is a terrible attack against me. It was not related to anything we were talking about. I asked, nicely I think, that you don’t make this personal. Your response was so over the top, that it was nothing short of bullying.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 61 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
4 days ago
Views: 163 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1