Like Kryptonite To Stupid
» Breaking News
Analyst: Only 4% Of Video Games Make Profit
AAA: Thanksgiving Travel To Drop For First Time Since 2002
Star Trek Uhura Poster With Zoe Saldana
More Jason Bourne Movies Coming
Britney Spears Jet Sets To Germany
In case you haven’t heard, former DC mayor and current DC council member Marion Barry has once again tested positive for cocaine. As usual, people in DC seem to be turning a blind eye towards this.
This is the moment where I point out that I live in Maryland, and that I’m from Maryland and I just work in D.C. Gawd.
Oliver Willis
owillis@gmail.com
AIM: oliverwill
OW @ MySpace
OW @ Facebook
OW @ Flickr
OW @ XBox Live
OW @ Twitter
Now, see, whatever anyone has to say about Bill Clinton–good or bad–they gotta admit that he did the right thing about Sistah Souljah.
When you’ve got somebody on your own team who’s letting the whole team down, you gotta say something about it. And that time came a loooong time ago when it comes to Mr. Barry.
There’s not one single Democrat anywhere who has anything to gain by standing up for a crackhead who won’t get himself some help.
There s not one single Democrat anywhere who has anything to gain by standing up for a crackhead who won t get himself some help.
I wouldn’t want to be accused of racism, but I’ll bet I can tell you why he’s untouchable.
Can you say O.J.?
BTW, Frank, just some advice, if you don’t want to be accused of racism, don’t make racist statements.
HTH
“I wouldn t want to be accused of racism, but I ll bet I can tell you why he s untouchable.
Can you say O.J.?”
Marion Barry is a member of the Bush
family? Does he play football? Did Marion Barry win the Heisman trophy? What are you trying to say Frank?
Yea, Frank, those black people always escape conviction for their crimes. That’s why there are no black people in prison.
OK, factcheck, I’ll say it, Marion Berry is untouchable because he he is B-L-A-C-K.
Call me a racist, call me a sweet potato, I don’t care.
If he was white, he’d be history.
Dick Morris was caught with a prostitute, not even smoking crack, and he had to resign.
Factcheck, changing the subject doesn’t make you right.
I said Berry is getting a free ride, because he is black.
I’m sure if he were about 20 years old, and his father was a working stiff, he’d be in jail, whether he was white or black.
So put the big “racist paint brush” away. I’m not wearing it, thanks.
*urk!*
*cough*
“I’m not a racist but I play one at Oliverwillis.com”
We’ll consider your disavowel of Mayor Marion … just as soon as you recognize our disavowel of Pat Robertson.
Deal. Be sure and let us know when that happens.
While I await moderation, Google will tell you that the following Righties have weighed in on the “good” Rev.:
Instapundit
National Review
Michael Barone
Hugh Hewitt
Real Clear Politics
Little Green Footballs
Scott McClellan (speaking for Bush)
While you’re Googling those, keep in mind that all those tax cuts for Paris Hilton and Bill Gates … worked!
C’mon Farris…
“Revenues hit an all-time record”? Lame.
Revenues have hit an “all-time record” in 46 out of the last 55 years. (For bonus points: Four of the years when we didn’t hit a new record came under which president?)
So, just because there’s no longer any evidence to back up the assertion that “tax cuts for the rich are causing deficits”, you now say the issue is “lame”? Where were you when the argument was originally made? Hmmm??
(Yes, we’ve officially wandered WAY off topic. I’d love to expound in another thread, if only Oliver could find a shred of evidence that the economy might not be doing gangbusters and build a post around it. [I know, it's hard nowadays with all the fantastic news...])
Anyway…
Insta doesn’t speak for “the right”, though that never stops lefties from saying he does when it’s convenient. Anyone who thinks NR and Hugh don’t track with the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” is out of their gourd.
And Bush isn’t a member of the right? Try telling the owner of this website.
I know those names from somewhere….
Oh yeah! Aren’t those the people who “don’t speak for the right”?
You’d have to take that up with the Congressional Budget Office. When they estimated the impact of the tax cuts, they caluclated a significant negative impact on the budget deficit.
Or were you trying to argue that “supply-side” hooey?
Anyway…
“member of” is not the same as “speaks for.” When I said the people on that list “don’t speak for the right,” I was just trying to remember what I had heard. Seems like whenever anybody is held up as typical of conservative thinking, someone will say, “Well, you don’t really think he speaks for the right, do you?”
Well, no one person speaks for “the right”. We’ve got such a big tent when everyone from Arnold Scharzenegger & Rudy Gulianai to Ralph Reed & Ann Coulter is included, so it’s hard, if not impossible, to speak for everyone when there’s so many stances on a multitude of issues. It’s much easier to find spokesmen for “the left” because yall’s tent is small and getting smaller (if the ‘throw out Lieberman’ drive is any indication).
And yes. Supply-side works. As evidenced by … the evidence!
“Record high revenues” is not evidence. As I have already mentioned, the federal government has achieved record highs 45 times since 1950, in times of rising taxes, falling taxes, and unchanging taxes.
If you have been otherwise misled by supply-side hucksters into accepting their quackery in place of actual evidence, please feel free to reveal the depths of your gullibility.
You may trust that I’ll examine your “evidence” dispassionately.
Haw.
Record high revenues over 50 years must needs include far too many variables to discuss here: Changes in Minimum and Maximum Tax, changes in filing statuses (i.e., Head of Household, the ability to itemize deductions for children in college), differences in taxable pensions, partial taxation of unemployment, etc., etc., etc.
The question has alway been: “Won’t reducing tax rates reduce revenues“, and the answer to that question, when there have been tax rate reductions, has always been “No.”
And the opposite is true also. Raising tax rates often results in record high revenues. So Farris’ “evidence” isn’t evidence of anything.
And no, Frank the question has not always Won t reducing tax rates reduce revenues .
Farris’ assertion was “supply side works as evidenced by…the evidence.” That’s the question under discussion here.
OK, Quaker, I will put the ball back in your court: Exactly where and when has the question of tax decreases ever revolved about anything else but their ability to raise revenues (an increase in revenues thereby representing an improved economy)?