Giuliani snubs farmer couple for campaign appearance because they don’t make enough money.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Oliver Willis
Like Kryptonite To Stupid
-
-
Breaking News
- Tila Tequila Live Streaming Mental Meltdown
- 31 Die In Chinese Mine Blast In Heilongjiang Province, 82 Trapped
- Victoria Justice Stars In New Nickeloden Show “Victorious”
- CERN’s Large Hadron Collider Back Up And Running
- Megan Fox Alive For Transformers 3
- Maryna Linchuk @ 2009 Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show
- Madison Parker Works Out
- Sony Reveals Lame Attempt To Fight iTunes
- Brian Thomas: UK Man Gets Away With Killing Wife In His Sleep
- Olivia Wilde @ US Weekly Hot Hollywood 2009 Party
Live News
Well, there goes the pathetic “Death tax will destroy family farms!” argument.
Where are Dugger, Frank, and the rest of the Wingnut Wack Pack on this?
A silence that speaks volumes, I guess.
Actually, I’ve spent all day looking for a portion of the headline that’s true.
I haven’t found it.
You mean because the article that is being referenced is on a website that has gone down for bandwidth issues?
The reporter at TPM has stated he’s independently confirmed the story. But you’re free to hunt down the Von Spreckens and ask them yourself; Deb Von Sprecken says she’s more than willing to talk about it. Phone books are a wonderful thing.
The word of Greg Sargent isn’t good enough for Frank because he’s a dirty Librl scumbag, not that Frank is accusing him of lying or anything like that of course, but he obviously can’t be trusted because if he could it would be damaging to “Frank’s side”.
No, actually, the reason the headline is unduly deceptive, is because the Giuliani campaigners wanted a farmer whose farm would fit the bill if he were to die. It didn’t. It wasn’t that he “wasn’t rich enough”. That is extremely deceptive.
Imagine that you want to do a photo op with some kids from the hood on “Midnight basketball”. You get it all set up, and then you find out that the teenager involved is a paraplegic. You have to turn him down. Should the story be, “Giuliani campaigners turn down kid for photo op because he is black”?
Stop being so goddammed stupid, and I won’t be so goddammed angry. You guys make me sick.
What part of that isn’t supra-mega jerkish?
“Imagine that you want to do a photo op with some kids from the hood on “Midnight basketball”. You get it all set up, and then you find out that the teenager involved is a paraplegic. You have to turn him down.”
Why do you have to turn him down just because he’s paraplegic? He’s not the only one, you said “kids from the hood”, and besides, presumably he does play “midnight basketball” despite his disability, so there’s a human interest story there.
I was not inventing a guy who CAN play basketball. I was inventing a guy who can’t. That was the point ["presumably he does play 'midnight basketball' despite his disability" -- where did you get that idea?]. If he can’t play basketball, you don’t print a story that he was rejected because he was black.
And however “jerkish” you might think it is, that farm was not the kind of farm that fits the legislation that Giuliani was trying to demonstrate his opposition to.
Are you really going to argue about this?
The headline in both Oliver’s post, and the link, suggested that the farm wasn’t used because the farmer wasn’t rich enough.
And that is JUST NOT SO.
“And however “jerkish” you might think it is, that farm was not the kind of farm that fits the legislation that Giuliani was trying to demonstrate his opposition to.”
Don’t hold your breath waiting for the campaign to find a family farm that DOES fit that legislation.
But if you’re looking to kill some time while they try to find the mythical family farm that will be lost because of the so-called “Death Tax”, you could google “wheelchair basketball”.
michael: Why don’t you google “time wasting URL’s”
As I pointed out, “I was not inventing a guy who CAN play basketball. I was inventing a guy who can’t”
I never said a guy in a wheelchair can’t play basketball.
I suppose you sincerely believed that I had never heard of that.
“No, actually, the reason the headline is unduly deceptive, is because the Giuliani campaigners wanted a farmer whose farm would fit the bill if he were to die. It didn’t. It wasn’t that he “wasn’t rich enough”. That is extremely deceptive.”
Frank, are you trying to act dumb.
The farm didn’t qualify cause the farmer wasn’t rich enough. The Estate Tax only applies to very, very rich people, like Giuliani. Giuliani wants to get rid of it by saying it will hurt farmers. But he couldn’t find a farmer that would be hit by it.
The only deception here is from Giuliani.
How can you just say, “Frank, you are wrong because I say so”? Because that is what you are saying.
Whether you think so or not, whether you care or not, it is deceptive to say “Giuliani snubs farmer couple for campaign appearance because they don’t make enough money”, when the more truthful, less volatile, less flammable headline would say, “Giuliani campaign staff errs, finds wrong family for campaign gig.”
Period, and done.
“How can you just say, ‘Frank, you are wrong because I say so’?”
I didn’t. I gave you a clear reason why you were wrong.
Giuliani wanted to link the estate tax to family farms. However, the person they choose for this charade wasn’t rich enough to be affected by the estate tax.
This is undeniable by anyone with two brain cells to rub together.
The headline is inflammatory, but not inaccurate in any way.
“Giuliani campaign staff errs, finds wrong family for campaign gig.”
That’s not what happened. They didn’t tell this family that they were doing a campaign stop on the Estate Tax, and asked them if they would like to be a prop? Also, there are no family farms out there that would qualify.
“the person they choose for this charade wasn’t rich enough to be affected by the estate tax”
rich enough to be affected by the estate tax is the qualifier that was left out of the story, you dissembling prig!
If “there are no family farms out there that would qualify”, then “not being rich enough” is not the reason they weren’t used.
Additionally, you and Oliver and that other guy all fail to realize that “snubbed” is the wrong word.
Now, please move to another thread to annoy me. I am done on this one.
“We’d like to do an event at your farm.”
“OK, great. Everything is ready for you.”
“No, wait – we need to find millionaires and you aren’t rich enough”
What exactly does “snub” mean, if not this?
To ignore or behave coldly toward; slight.
They didn’t ignore them: They changed their minds.
Which is still behaving coldly toward; slighting.
Interesting way of being done on this thread.
“rich enough to be affected by the estate tax is the qualifier that was left out of the story, you dissembling prig!”
So what?
It is really better for Giuliani to set up a campaign stop with these two, have them organize an event, then pull the plug because he can’t use them to make a political point?
Think about it. No, really think about it. Giuliani cares more about repealing the Estate Tax than he does about treating donators well.
“If “there are no family farms out there that would qualify”, then “not being rich enough” is not the reason they weren’t used.”
The Republicans tried to find someone who died in the Katrina disaster who qualified for the Estate Tax. Just because there were none, doen’t mean they didn’t try.
It is the same here. Just because Giuliani has an impossible task ahead of him, doesn’t mean he isn’t trying.
“I am done on this one.”
Really? Then someone pretending to be you posted here after you left.