A Tax Increase - This Was Not Supposed To Happen!
An old Dutch proverb says, "We grow too soon old and too late smart." That proverb is quite appropriate as "Dear Leader" President Barack Hussein Obama's "fiscal cliff deal" actually increased taxes on his supporters. As Joseph Curl provided some quotes in The Washington Times:…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Not the liberal actor
Re: comment # 25, troll, you say, "...any non-paranoid watching the clip of the offending statement in full can see that it's reasonable to think that Obama was talking specifically about income taxes" You offer your opinion as if it was fact, with no supporting link that we can follow to form our own opinions. What are we to do if our opinions differ from yours? Or is difference permitted?
27 - troll
Warren - you will find the video link on your CBS source...I'd think that you would have taken a look before writing this piece
28 - troll
...when you have viewed it let me know if you think that the 'income tax' interpretation is all that unreasonable
29 - Jet Gardner
Troll, Troll, Troll, You KNOW that if it did come from Fox News or LimpBaugh's mouth it's not fact.
Haven't you gotten his point yet?
30 - Glenn Contrarian
I think I just found who Warren listens to when he wants to learn just how eeeeeeeeeevil we liberals are....
31 - Jet Gardner
That's dissapointing Glenn, all this time I thought it was the church lady...
...then again when I was 14 I thought teaching algebra was an evil conspiracy too, so that fits right into the mindset of homeschoolers.
Then again Anita Bryant and Jerry Falwell were against teaching it because some librull sex fiend snuck the word "bra" into Algebra
32 - judiann1
While remembering who we voted for we need to remember the choices and particularly keep in mind who backs their campaigns. For those who can't go figure ... corporations are running this country. Enjoy the ride ... what little time you have ...
33 - Dr Dreadful
Well, Doc, had you done ANY research, you would know that the "fiscal cliff deal" bill signed by Obama extended the (so-called) Bush tax cuts for a vast number (those making under $250,000 per year) of Americans.
Ah, I see. So Obama did not in fact raise taxes on the middle class at all. Glad you're coming round to reality...
34 - clavos
...and I did read the article.
Nothing in your #10 (or any of your subsequent comments in this thread) gives any indication you did.
35 - Baronius
Based on Jet's comments, he read the article...but it was an article about Limbaugh insulting gays.
36 - Jet Gardner
Clavos and Baronius obviously didn't read my comment... I said his NEXT article would be about that-not this one...
...understandable since most republican'ts read only with their right eye while keeping the left covered
37 - Dr Dreadful
...understandable since most republican'ts read only with their right eye while keeping the left covered
Wh o ear d yo me , Je ?
38 - Jet Gardner
I can see how covering your eye while typing would cause that ;)
39 - clavos
I said his NEXT article would be about that-not this one...
No, you said:
In #10:
...Like [sic] I said, the ear-piercing Hussein-screaming brat in the middle of a grocery store that nearly every one is too polite to say something to-impossible to reason with and just as annoying.
Oh dear, I've missed his point again.
Which, of course, in the absence of any contrary statement, obviously refers to the present article.
In #16 you said:
and I did read the article. About as amusing as the sunday funny papers and not nearly as intelligent
Again, in the absence of contradictory evidence, it's obvious you didn't read the article.
Your #21 is irrelevant to this issue.
In #24 you say:
Warren you're like the Howard Stern show-I can't help watching to see what assinine thing you're going to say next.
By the way, I'm dissappointed [sic] that you haven't copied Limp-baugh's recent equating homosexuals to pedophiles yet...
Still no contradictory evidence, still obviously in reference to this article, and then, finally, you refer to an (as yet nonexistent) future article by Warren, saying:
...or did I give away your next article (ooops)
#29 Is again irrelevant to this issue (though silly).
And #31 is not only irrelevant (to the issue) and silly, it's repetitive.
#36 is, obviously, erroneous:
And #39, yet again, is irrelevant.
So, no, Jet, Clavos and Baronius DID "read your comment;" apparently it was YOU who didn't.
TTFN
40 - Not the liberal actor
Re: comment # 28, troll, you say, "...when you have viewed it let me know if you think that the 'income tax' interpretation is all that unreasonable[.]" Yes, I think your interpretation is unreasonable. The speech to which you refer was primarily about two points: his willingness to compromise [from his perspective, as long as he gets his way], and deficit reduction [about which he has never been serious - he mentions deficit cuts while failing to mention even greater deficit spending]. Yes, he did mention income tax - once (1:02 mark), and he mentioned the payroll tax holiday - once (21 sec mark). You sound like a drowning man grasping for ANYTHING that will help him. I differ with your opinion. Does that make mine incorrect?
Re: comment # 30, Glenn, you cite an article about teaching algebra. Now you will explain what children chanting, “Mmm. Mmm. Mmm. Barack Hussein Obama,” has to do with teaching algebra. The article you cite continues, "Distribute the wealth with the lovely rich girl with a big ole bag of money, handing some money out.” Again, please what that has to do with teaching algebra.
Further, what does the article you cite have to do with ANYTHING about which I wrote? Glenn, IMHO, you have made yourself look more foolish than I could ever hope to.
Re: comment # 33, Doc, taxes DID increase. What's your point?
Re: comment # 39, clavos, well said. Using the commenters' own words illustrates just how they let their opinions show without doing any reading or research.
41 - Jet Gardner
Clavos-only Republican'ts like you and Warren could miss the ramifications of the words "yet" and "next" and try to falsely imply I meant this ridiculous article.
I REPEAT...
-------------
By the way, I'm dissappointed that you haven't copied Limp-baugh's recent equating homosexuals to pedophiles yet...
or did I give away your next article (ooops)
-------
That's an awful thick Maher bubble around you... I feel sorry it seems to be impenetrable.
I did read the article too-go to liberal hell if you don't believe it.
42 - Not the liberal actor
Re: comment # 41, Jet, your comment has absolutely nothing to do with my article. But, since YOU continue to raise the subject, have you ever heard of NAMBLA? And, as this source indicates, your continued reference to "Limp-baugh" and his equation of homosexuals (we called them queers in my day) to pedophiles is hardly confined to him alone.
No, I don't plan to write about the subject as Rush has said it all,
43 - Jet Gardner
Comment 41 contains the phrase "this ridiculous article." which has everything to do with this right-wing propaganda-which describes every single article (especially this one) that you have ever written.
as for queers-heeding your opinion on gays makes as much as sense as listening to Rush pontificate against the misuse of prescrption drugs.
44 - troll
Warren - Obama doesn't mention the payroll tax holiday at 21 sec as you claim...or anywhere else in the clip for that matter unlike income taxes
this makes a response problematic - I guess I can do no better than to ask why you think that's what he's talking about
45 - Jet Gardner
Troll... really? You've dealt with him for how long now without realizing his lack of even a tenative grasp on political reality?
The only facts Warren believes in are his own opinion.
46 - Zingzing
we called them queers in my day
47 - clavos
Interestingly, most of my gay friends, in the spirit of irony and thumbing their noses at the straights, call themselves queer.
And most are also highly self-confident individuals with good self-esteem who are comfortable in their own skins; they also are financially secure, conservative, over-achievers in both the arts and business, who are not given to hysteria.
48 - Baronius
Wow - you guys may actually pull this off. You went from not talking about the article to talking about Limbaugh and gays to turning the thread into a discussion of Limbaugh and gays. Warren appears to be a net noobie who doesn't know the difference between taking on all comers and being led off-topic. As for you guys, were you deliberately trying to take this thread off-topic or did you do it by accident?
49 - Zingzing
Clavos, I'm sure that's what warren meant.
Baronius, everyone loves the thread police.
50 - Cindy
Baronius has single-handedly taken this thread off the topic of the article and diverted it to the analysis of the comments section. Sheesh! Did you do that by accident?
51 - Igor
Not unusual: the second page is typically where BC comments wander off the original topic.
52 - Baronius
If anyone wants to talk about the article, go for it.
53 - Jet Gardner
What is left to say-This article is a reworded regurgitation of already published right-wing propaganda and the author refuses to listen to any contrary opinions of what are presented here questionably as his own. He arrogantly dismisses any facts to refute them, and rewards anyone (few as there are) who agree with him with a "see I told you so!" to answer those who don't.
When he gets bored with people putting down his foolish and often miscopied from other unreliable sourced articles, he writes a new one even more nonsensicle in hops we'll forget his last brain fart.
When a reasonable argument against one of his hero's opinions (for he obviously has none of his own) is presented he predictably responds
A. You missed my/his point
B. You didn't read the article or you'd agee with me.
C. That comment has nothing to do with my article (even if it does)
It's the crying baby syndrome-pay attention to me or I'll do something even more outrageous until you do.
54 - clavos
I love nonsensicles; they're as good as fudgesicles
55 - El Bicho
baronius - The internet allows people to communicate with each other. Blogcritics is a site on the internet. On this site, people are able to discuss various topics interactively. They've never been restricted by the article in what they are allowed to discuss in comments. No reason to think they should start now.
56 - Not the liberal actor
Re: comment # 43, Jet, am I starting to get "under your skin?"
Re: comment # 44, troll, I went back and reviewed what Obama said, particularly at the 21 second mark. Technically, you are correct - he doesn't refer to the "tax holiday" by name, but he does say, "... while preventing a middle class tax hike ...[.]" It appears that you are hiding behind a technicality.
Re: comment # 52, Baronius, discussion of the article will never happen as most commenters can't intelligently discuss anything beyond their own opinions (see comment # 53).
Re: comment # 53, Jet, you say, "... This article is a reworded regurgitation of already published right-wing propaganda ...[.] You (again) offer no illustrations (links) of your accusations. Your continued offering of your opinion (with NO attribution) is making you appear silly.
Howard Stern aside, if you don't like what I say, don't read it.
57 - Jet Gardner
I rest my case
58 - Baronius
EB - Fine words, almost poetic. But doesn't it seem weird to you that the same people gather in every comment thread of Warren's and don't talk about the article? I mean, if y'all want to make Pat Robertson jokes or whatever I can't stop you, but isn't it kind of messed up?
59 - clav
I rest my case
Case???
What "case?"
60 - Glenn Contrarian
Baronius -
EB - Fine words, almost poetic. But doesn't it seem weird to you that the same people gather in every comment thread of Warren's and don't talk about the article? I mean, if y'all want to make Pat Robertson jokes or whatever I can't stop you, but isn't it kind of messed up?
As with the rest of Warren's articles, we come in, point out how, um, uninformed his articles are (among other crticisms), and Warren always replies by saying that our criticisms don't count, et cetera, ad nauseum, so then the rest of us begin speaking on slightly (or more than slightly) different topics. Read this comment thread again - you'll see the same pattern.
In other words, it's hard to have a constructive conversation when one side simply dismisses whatever you say and presents little or no relevant data to defend his side.
61 - Jet Gardner
Fear not Warren-since you're always "not" something-we couldn't replace you because we don't know what you are!
62 - Dr Dreadful
But doesn't it seem weird to you that the same people gather in every comment thread of Warren's and don't talk about the article?
It's not weird that the same people gather in every comment thread of Warren's because pretty much the same people gather in the comment thread of every Politics article. (Well... unless you think that's weird.)
As for not talking about the article: (a) an infuriating habit many people have is to talk about what they want to talk about; however (b) people do talk about the meat of Warren's articles far more than he claims they do.
63 - Jet Gardner
(c) we few are the only ones dumb enough to read them.
64 - Glenn Contrarian
and (d) after the initial non-defense of his articles, we begin discussing not so much what's in his articles as what personal or environmental factors led to his writing of said article and his inclusion of certain elements therein.
65 - troll
Warren - given #56 your 'lie argument' boils down to a question of the logic of ordinary language use doesn't it?
when Obama uses the phrase 'a middle class tax hike' must he refer to all such hikes?
I can think of constructions where this doesn't hold eg if I say "I caught a fish" it wouldn't be all that reasonable to infer that I mean that I caught them all
do you agree that based on this logical technicality it's reasonable to question your argument?
66 - Not the liberal actor
Re: comment # 64, Glenn, you say, "... we begin discussing not so much what's in his articles as what personal or environmental factors led to his writing of said article and his inclusion of certain elements therein." If that's your attitude, then I expect full agreement from you about my latest article.
67 - Glenn Contrarian
Warren -
heh. I think you should read my comment on your newest article - it's already there.
68 - Igor
Warren is a notorious plagiarizer so there's no real depth behind his articles, therefore more discussion from others doesn't elicit more info from Warren. He just gets defensive.
69 - Dr Dreadful
Re: comment # 33, Doc, taxes DID increase. What's your point?
My point is that, by the standard of verification you yourself set (see: your exchange with troll), my contention that Obama didn't raise taxes is as valid as yours that he did.
70 - Baronius
Dread, what does that say about the tax debate, if "he raised taxes" and "he didn't raise taxes" are both to be considered equally true? I kind of get your point, but don't you think we should stop talking about temporary vs. tax rates, federal taxes vs. federal income taxes, and current year vs. 10 year vs. baseline budget cuts?
71 - Dr Dreadful
Baronius, I expected that you'd get the point. Warren still didn't, even after troll served it up to him on a plate.
I agree that the dialogue about taxes needs to be more constructive, but here at BC we can only work with the materials provided. In this instance, those were pretty shoddy.
72 - El Bicho
"isn't it kind of messed up?"
considering Warren has repeatedly been caught using the work of others and ignores those who point out the inaccuracies in his articles, I'm not sure why you think people should talk about them.
73 - Baronius
Dread - Us thread people seem perfectly willing to bring our own materials, to talk about anything we want to. If the article was lacking, we could bring our corrections. I think the article actually addressed the matter nicely. It said the same thing I am: people don't realize the implications of tax debate because no one talks clearly.
EB - I don't know if that's a non sequitur, but I personally couldn't follow it.
74 - Dr Dreadful
It said the same thing I am: people don't realize the implications of tax debate because no one talks clearly.
Unintentionally it said that, Baronius, perhaps. But you know as well as I do that Warren's unvarying message in every article he writes is "Everything Barack Hussein Obama does is wrong". The only difference is in which particular cherry-picks, distortions, removals of context, pettifoggings and propagandizings tenuously anchored by tendrils of truth he uses to further his aim.
So I guess that's the challenge. We can spend inordinate amounts of time refuting Warren, which as Jet in admittedly not the most mature way has pointed out is like water off a duck's back, or we can reframe the discussion along the lines of:
Absolutely everything Warren says notwithstanding, is there anything to the claim that the fiscal cliff deal will raise taxes on the middle class, and if so is this necessarily a bad thing; and more broadly, who is the deal good and bad for?
75 - clav
The only difference is in which particular cherry-picks, distortions, removals of context, pettifoggings and propagandizings tenuously anchored by tendrils of truth he uses to further his aim.
C'mon, Doc. Get off the fence; tell us what you really think...