Why, In All Likelihood, A Democrat Will Win in 2008
Tweet
Hollywood actor Fred Thompson, who isn’t yet a full fledged candidate, is now tied at the top of the Republican field. Yes, the same Fred Thompson who answers a softball question with inconsequential blather, whose campaign has no idea where Daniel Boone is from, and who wants us to blockade Iran.
Hallelujah!
84 Responses to “Why, In All Likelihood, A Democrat Will Win in 2008”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
“Blockade” Iran? A country that shares over half its border on land with seven different countries?
Does he want to boost the Nebraska Coast Guard too?
Yea, but he recorded a retort to Michael Moore (with a big black Cuban….er..cigar in his mouth) so he’s obviously qualified.
Fred Thompson is a joke. I really hope Republicans support him. That way we won’t have to work quite as hard to put President Clinton back in the White House.
(Cue wingnut saying we’re scared of him)
Thompson’s not any stupider than Prince Bunnypants, so don’t get so damn excited already.
I’m curious: Do you think Republican movers and shakers are unaware of these things?
Do you think Thompson’s weaknesses are unknown to him AND the power brokers in the Republican Party?
Of course not. And that’s why it sounds like you’re afraid of him. If you say you’re not, I believe you, but that’s what it sounds like to me.
Every time I write about one of these guys, I’m told that I’m afraid of them. So far this year I’ve been told I’m shaking in my boots over Giuliani, Thompson, McCain and Romney. Republican powerbrokers don’t have a very good ear for the American people. The Dem ones are only marginally better, but the powerbrokers are the same ones pushing Thompson and the ones who pushed the GOP off the cliff last year so color me unimpressed by your usual bluster Frank.
a) It’s rose coloured glasses. The colour of your blinders wouldn’t make any difference.
b) What the hell could rose-coloured glasses have to do with anything? The guys who still support Bush have theirs, but what could us rational people possibly need them for?
ANY Republican has a decent chance. There’ll be lots of cash in hand, they have free 24 hour radio coverage, and they know how to make people be leary of Democrats.
In a nutshell here are the Thompson match-ups:
Edwards looks French, T looks presidential (if you like Shrek, you’ll like T)
Hillary is a manipulative bitch, T is a strong father figure
Obama is not white, T is
His negatives will be made into positives:
Former lobbyist? He knows how to get things done.
Divorced with a younger wife? He’s only human.
Lazy? Contemplative. An actor? Able to convincingly bluff. Flip flopper? Willing to be flexible as times change.
The Southern strategy will be in play meaning only one or two purple states need to be picked off.
Hillary is the most vulnerable to Thompson. Her negatives and his positives put her in a precarious position. It’s unlikely she could overcome this spread.
grabble grabble grabble….I hate Hillary…..I’m not a real man…..Mayonaisse stinks when left in the sun (and is French)…..I’m an embarassment to my species… I lick Sean Hannity’s smegma…
HUGLAGHALGHALGHAL ellipsis AGHAUGLAGHAL ellipsis HUGLAGHALGHALGHAL
How are you doing at the Minnesota Congress there, Salad?
Oliver, if candidates like Fred Thompson are such a joke as you imply, why the constant need to write about what jokes they supposedly are?
And really, if a mistake on a bio page is the evidence that you have Thompson is not ready for prime time, that’s pretty weak stuff. I read you guys blathering on all the time about inconsequential things Democrats say that conservatives hammer over and over again, yet here is the left, going gaga over an editing error.
The interesting thing however is the attacks on Thompson about his ‘experience.’ The top three Democrats right now are:
1. A former personal injury attorney who served a total of one term in the Senate.
2. A former state senator who hasn’t even served a full term in the Senate.
3. The wife of a former governor and President who has served just over one term in the Senate.
Can anybody lay out in all the glorious details what makes Edwards, Obama or Clinton so qualified to run the country, but not Thompson?
Because Daniel Boone’s Heritage is one of the 3 most important issues in the 2008 election. If we’re going to automatically disqualify candidates for boneheaded mistakes of no consequence, then isn’t Obama or anyone who associates with Jack Murtha already disqualified?
Potato Salad !!!! | Jun 20, 2007 10:08:48 AM
“Enjoying your week in the echo (echo, echo, echo) chamber, Ollie-boy. Just keep those rose colored blinders on.”
“Echo, echo, echo, echo…….boo-frickity who Hillary…….Bloomberg will be the new Perot……we win again……France, get ready for the Baldwin crowd……not just tote bags – tin foil hats for all…….Jimmy Carter is an embarrassment to this country…….”
“Chummy, your tin foil is too tight. Go see “Sicko” and work yourself into a lather.”
LoL … impressively articulate, John M Sheehan.
I actually think Jay makes a good point. Kudos, Jay.
However, Thompson’s lack of experience is far from his only criticism.
Potato Salad… what’s wrong with you? Have you nothing interesting or important to add? No? Well, until you do… shut the fuck up.
Mambo, I agree. To be honest, the only candidate on both sides that impresses me at all is Bill Richardson. For the life of me, I cannot fathom why the Democratic party is not pushing him more.
I haven’t watched any of the debates (Rep or Dem), so maybe the issue with Richardson is something I haven’t seen or maybe it’s just too damned early.
Jay, I couldn’t agree with you more about Richardson. I keep wondering what he’s going to have to do to really break through. Right now I have reservations about all the top three Dem candidates and can’t understand what Richardson needs to do to pull himself closer to their ranks.
Richardson can’t seem to find his national voice. It might be because he’s from a relatively minor state that is distantly removed from Washington or other media hubs. Huckabee probably suffers the same fate.
If he doesn’t break through to the presidency, he’d also make a hell of a secretary of state.
I’ll vote for it’s too damned early.
color me unimpressed by your usual bluster Frank.
You call that bluster? I’m not impressed by anyone on either side of the aisle.
All we get from Sen. Clinton is predictability. She will be a “Hal Holbrook” type President just like her husband was. She’ll probably be in office 8 years, like her husband was, and when she’s gone, some of us will be saying, “Huh?”
8 years of holding the reins, while going nowhere. Yippee.
Please don’t feed the frank…
It is possible for us to have a discussion here that doesn’t involve shit-throwing.
Frank,
Even assuming your rather dubious presumption is true, it’s better to tread water and go nowhere than to do what Bush and Co. have done… sink the country like a damn stone to the bottom of the ocean.
Tater salad, leave those fucking stilts at thome.
“Lazy? Contemplative.”
Chum, that made me laugh out loud.
Frank: I can’t wait for the Hillary Clinton presidency. Just like the Bill Clinton presidency, you say? For 8 years, you say? Thanks for brightening my day.
Rasmussen poll signals the anointing of Former Lobbyist Freddy T, the Nightmare of K Street, as the GOP’s favorite!
Oh man, are you Rethugs in a world of pain…
Dr AGH: Children and madmen are easily entertained.
I just can’t imagine Fred Thompson being anything other than Sen. Clinton’s Bob Dole.
The Republicans they need 4 years of the usual Democratic craziness to get back in the White House, and may be willing to “throw” this match.
It might be because he’s from a relatively minor state that is distantly removed from Washington or other media hubs.
Golly, ya think?
Bill should go get an expensive haircut or get somebody to write a salacious biography about him. Then maybe the network gods will notice him.
Do you think Republican movers and shakers are unaware of these things?
Do you think Thompson’s weaknesses are unknown to him AND the power brokers in the Republican Party?
Considering what else was, and is unknown to the Republican party, probably.
Oliver, if candidates like Fred Thompson are such a joke as you imply, why the constant need to write about what jokes they supposedly are?
Because he’s really funny (in a pathetic way) and entertaining to read about.
The Republicans they need 4 years of the usual Democratic craziness to get back in the White House, and may be willing to “throw” this match.
Ah, the Democratic craziness of starting pointless wars, running up the deficit to historic highs, Letting major cities get attacked and/or destoryed while reading a children’s book or playing the guitar.
…Wait a minute.
I’m voting for Fred. He makes me feel so safe and he smells good too, though not quite as good as Mitt.
To be honest, I wish there were better Republicans in the field. It says a lot when the majority of a party’s voters are ready to follow behind Thompson without even hearing his stand on the issues. His response to Chris Matthews that he planned to do “a lot” if elected was scandalous. Yet there he is atop the Republican polls.
“The Republicans they need 4 years of the usual Democratic craziness to get back in the White House, and may be willing to “throw” this match.”
It will take more than four years. If the Hillary years are half as good as the Clinton years, even the right-wing noise machine won’t be able to derail them in 2012.
Hey, Clem, think a minute. Come out from under the “Clinton spell”. During his eight years of using the White House as a cool place to score chicks, what did he actually do?
IMHO, he spent eight years trying to convince all of America, that he was doing something for all of us.
What WAS accomplished, was accomplished not because of him, but in spite of him.
Two of the biggest tax increases in my working life, which began part time in 1962, were under Presidents Carter and Clinton.
Frank, don’t bother trying to convince us that Clintonian peace and prosperity wouldn’t be an improvement over Bush. It’s just as much an insult to you as to us. Out of curiosity, do you mean biggest tax impact on your income, or biggest tax increase in some general sense?
To reflect back to an earlier thread, a big indicator that the Dems will win is that even Bloomberg–who, up until the other day, had an interest in the fortunes of the Republican Party– realized that the absolute first thing he had to do to get into the White House was to cut his loses and get the hell out of the GOP.
(I realize that he’s not really a contender, but he’s neither stupid nor stuck in that creepy ‘winger alternate reality, like the other R candidates.)
“Two of the biggest tax increases in my working life, which began part time in 1962, were under Presidents Carter and Clinton.”
Frank, please point to a single tax policy change under Carter. I don’t want to reflexively call you a liar, asshole or troll, so if you can simply point to the major tax law changes that occurred during his presidency, you will be redeemed. If you can’t, well, you know the drill…
I think all the Republicans are nutball idiots, even the ones who win elections. I find George W. Bush to be amazingly ridiculous, but I never underestimate the ability of the GOP to fall in line behind ridiculous idiots. That said, I think a circus clown could get elected president in 2008 if he was a Democrat because your side has the stench of the Bush era on it for some time now. That we have good leaders who I trust to clean up America as our candidates – even the second tier ones – I think is a bonus. Why do I think they’re good people? Because they believe in the exact opposite of Bush and the GOP field. That alone is worth the price of admission.
During his eight years of using the White House as a cool place to score chicks . . .
How Republican are different from normal people: They’re still completely slack-jawed over a BJ that happened almost a decade ago between two consenting adults that virtually none of them even know personally. Seriously, the utter inability of practically anyone on the Right to mention Bill Clinton without some knee-jerk remark about sex says volumes more about them than whatever else they may have to say.
“accomplished not because of him, but in spite of him.”
You keep telling yourself that.
“Two of the biggest tax increases in my working life, which began part time in 1962, were under Presidents Carter and Clinton.”
12 years of Republicans and record deficits will do that. Someone had to pay to the voodoo economics of Reagan, and why not the people who voted him in?
Just how big was Reagan’s tax increase, anyway? It was substantially bigger than Bush 1′s, right?
I see that Reagan’s 1982 tax increase raised taxes by 1.3% of GDP, while Clinton’s 1993 tax increase raised taxes by 0.9%. Clinton’s was only larger in an absolute sense, because the economy was bigger 11 years later. But relative to the economy, Reagan is clearly the king of tax hikes. And that doesn’t even count Reagan’s huge tax hikes in ’84 and ’85. In fact, the only years Reagan didn’t raise taxes were ’81 and ’88.
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp
Two of the biggest tax increases in my working life, which began part time in 1962, were under Presidents Carter and Clinton.
And both were exceeded in size–both in inflation adjusted dollars and percent of the total economy–by the 1982 tax increase pushed on us by St. Reagan.
Hmpf.
While I’m busy scraping together my facts, Doc AGH is typing up the truth.
Good job, Doc.
I’m curious: Do you think Republican movers and shakers are unaware of these things?
Do you think Thompson’s weaknesses are unknown to him AND the power brokers in the Republican Party?
Considering the fact that what the Republican party is unaware of could fill a warehouse (Diplomacy, economics, statistics, biology*,etc.), I’d have to assume the answer is “yes”.
*Don’t you find it the least bit sad that these people get their information about evolution from watching Pokemon reruns?
“While I’m busy scraping together my facts, Doc AGH is typing up the truth.”
I know that feeling.
“Damn, now I have nothing left to add.”
My paycheck at the time was a very small portion of the GDP. In the case of Carter’s tax increase, it was the first tax year I got no refund.
In the case of the Clinton tax increase, my withholding increased substantially, and then I discovered the next year that I had no refund coming — the F.I.C.A. increase was the largest single tax increase in history.
While I’m sure there is some exciting data to be plumbed in comparing the measurements of tax increases in single dollars in astronomical units, there is only one significant measuring stick: How much tax comes out of my pay? How much do I get back when I file?
Actually, FICA tax rates haven’t increased since 1990.
You might be thinking of the 2 jumps during the administration of St. Reagan.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/oasdiRates.html
That we have good leaders who I trust to clean up America as our candidates – even the second tier ones – I think is a bonus. Why do I think they’re good people? Because they believe in the exact opposite of Bush and the GOP field. That alone is worth the price of admission.
I hate to break the news to your Oliver, but candidates don’t win on the, “I’m not _______” platform. The Democrats did a good job this past fall of convincing people to vote for them, not against the GOP.
Once a candidate starts saying to vote for them because they’re not the other guy, it’s a recipe for losing.
“there is only one significant measuring stick: How much tax comes out of my pay? How much do I get back when I file?”
… This is just sad.
So if you got fired during the Bush administration because of the economic downturn, you could brag that your taxes fell by 100%. Woo hoo.
In reality, the blame for raising the taxes should be held by the president who increased the decifit the most. They spent the money, they are responsible for paying it off. It doesn’t matter if another president has to make the tough choices for past mistakes.
For instance, I don’t blame H.W.Bush for raising taxes to deal with Reagan’s voodoo economics. (On a side note, I do think it was dumb to promise no new taxes, but I don’t blame him for breaking that pledge.)
Aw shucks, guys, I just remembered that Paul Krugman wrote about the “myth of tax-cutting Reagan” after his death, and googled it. Frank, the reason people care about the measurement of the tax hikes in GDP is because the GOP brings this stuff up all the time. They’re always going on about how Clinton had that largest tax hike, and how Kerry voted for it, etc. It’s a simple but effective lie that must be countered.
Once a candidate starts saying to vote for them because they’re not the other guy, it’s a recipe for losing.
You apparently slept through the 2004 election and the campaign that was all about John Kerry and his [boogedy]liberal ideas[/boogedy].
Frank, there was no Carter tax increase. There were small incremental increases in capital gains that were reduced by 1979 to 28%, but the Carter presidency had virtually no effect on tax policy. I find it hard to believe that you worked at the IRS for 15 years and know so little about the tax code or policy.
Rather than getting pissed at you and calling you a liar, as I might wish to do. I will instead ask that you use this as an opportunity to learn a couple things. First, think before you write. Second, find out how much of the bullshit you’ve been fed about the economy is real. I might, for example, point you to Krugman’s Peddling Prosperity. Sure, you will have to hide it under your bed so that the conservative neighbors don’t know you’re reading Krugman, but it is truly inspired writing.
Oliver, give me your Paypal address. I’ll send you a buck so you can buy yourself a clue.
GWB did not have to rely on a “I’m not Kerry” campaign. He was the incumbent for crissakes. He said, “Here’s my four years. Make your decision.”
Real examples are Bill McBride when he ran against Jeb Bush. Or Rick Lazio when he ran against Hillary Clinton. Neither McBride or Lazio were able to get the average person off their ass to go vote.
There are three types of voters in my view:
1. Political junkies. People like us who are able to watch Jeopardy and name what state representatives hail from. Voting for us is not only a civic duty, but we also know pretty much know about everything on that ballot from the national election down to the local ones.
2. People who vote because it is routine for them to do so and they believe it is their civic duty to do so. They’re not particularly passionate about it, but are pretty knowledgeable.
3. People who for the most part could give a rat’s ass about politics. But from time to time, they get a good kick in the rear and make it a point to vote. My nephew is 28 and has never voted, but he said he’ll be out there in January when a vote will take place that will seek to reduce property taxes in Florida.
Voter number 3 doesn’t respond to “I’m not _______.” It just doesn’t work. And if you think a Dem can win in 2008 using that kind of strategy, you’ll wake up the next Wednesday wondering where it all went wrong.
I find it hard to believe that you worked at the IRS for 15 years and know so little about the tax code or policy.
I was working at the IRS in 1976, and I’m sorry that your level of skepticism is so great that you can’t even believe that
Those “incremental step” meant that, after years of three digit refunds, I now owed a few dollars when I filed. As I said before, the amount of taxes paid by everyone in America, compared with the GDP, is about as meaningless a statistical comparison as you can make.
Rather than getting pissed at you and calling you a liar, as I might wish to do.
Far be it from me to be an obstacle — call me a liar, and I shall instantly be transformed into one. The conversation will benefit from your revision, I’m sure.
I will instead ask that you use this as an opportunity to learn a couple things.
Yes, indeed. Because the idea that you might need to learn a couple of things is inconceivable. The idea that you might be mistaken — preposterous. The idea that there is something you are not fully informed about — incredible.
Any time you want to allow me to bask in the glory of your magnificence, here’s a couple of suggestions:
Levitate across the United State, to my side of the country; OR
Walk on the water around South America.
Those “incremental step” meant that, after years of three digit refunds, I now owed a few dollars when I filed. As I said before, the amount of taxes paid by everyone in America, compared with the GDP, is about as meaningless a statistical comparison as you can make.
Frank, if you owned stock in 1977, you would have seen the tax on the gains of those shares rise from 37% to 40%, so if you had company stock that grew at 10%, you would have felt an increase in your taxes of about $30 for every $10,000 invested. If you are trying to insinuate that this was the cause of your declining refund, it would only have been the case if you had significant wealth in stock, which is highly dubious given what I know about you. Then again, you would have also seen those capital gains decrease again to 28% in 1979 so the effect would have on balance been more than positive. Carter would have been a blessing to you, by the way, after the Nixon/Ford presidencies which pushed cap gains from 27% to 37%.
I won’t go so far to say you are a liar, but I will say that you are completely full of shit, but unlike most bullshitters, you are just unable to fess up to it. This is a personal defect that you should take pains to correct.
While I’m sure there is some exciting data to be plumbed in comparing the measurements of tax increases in single dollars in astronomical units,
Astronomical units are a measurement of distance (specifically, 1 AU=mean distance between the sun & Earth). That sentence makes no sense.
That sentence makes no sense.
Now you’re getting it!
“And if you think a Dem can win in 2008 using that kind of strategy, you’ll wake up the next Wednesday wondering where it all went wrong.”
You’re right. It didn’t work for John Kerry in 2004; even if your opponent is George W. Bush, simply not being him isn’t enough on its own.
Fortunately the Democrats will highly probably win next year with some other strategy instead, because when it comes down to it, few people want the Republicans in Government again.
Nimrod, we’re almost 18 months away from an election which is a lifetime in politics. Go back to the early spring of 1995. Bill Clinton was talking about his ‘relevance.’ There was already talk of a Republican win in 1996.
By the end of 1995, that was all history. Clinton using his amazing skills as a politician was able to turn a minor government shutdown into a major crisis that was blamed entirely on Congress and the GOP. His numbers soared and that was the end of the story.
I’m not saying a Democrat won’t win next year. I’m just saying that it’s way too early to place bets.
I agree that it’s early, but the only way I can see Republicans turning things around would be Bloomberg screwing things up in battleground states or the surge working.
Or – God forbid – a major terrorist attack on US soil.
Just sayin’.
Again, you’re right, but the Republicans are going to have to do something pretty spectacular in the next 18 months to erase people’s memories of the last eight years. I mean spontaneously throwing money and puppies at everyone in the country, that might help the swing.
zadura: What can I say? You give me a lecture on the effect of stock prices and capital gains rate changes, and then you presume — correctly — that I didn’t own any stock.
So what was the point?
Not only are you not referring to me, you are not referring to anyone else that didn’t own stocks or bonds in 1977.
What does that have to do with telling the truth? Are you saying that based on your scenario, which was totally irrelevant to my income situation (100% wages), that I must be lying? (Or “not a liar” — I guess that would be a bad thing, but rather, “full of shit”, somehow a not so bad thing)
Zython and Scotty: {Note to Scotty: Never back Zython — never!) You are both incorrect. I was referring to the length of those sums of money in dollar bills.
spontaneously throwing money and puppies at everyone in the country, that might help the swing.
How about putting you in a Wicker man?
Frank, there was no Carter tax increase. When you stated that one of the two largest tax increases in your life was during the Carter years, you were full of shit. Definitely not the first time, probably not the last. Capisce?
If your taxes were different one year to the next it was because: (a) you had substantial differences in family/marital/personal status; (b) changed your tax withholding; (c) forgot to carry the one.
Zython and Scotty: {Note to Scotty: Never back Zython — never!)
Aww…is wittle Fwankie jealous that no one ever backs him. Let me comfort you with a violin solo.
You are both incorrect. I was referring to the length of those sums of money in dollar bills.
How about putting you in a Wicker man?
…Wow…You’ve actually gone of the deep end and espouse threats. I didn’t think you could sink any lower, but…wow…I should REALLY report you to the proper authorities.
If your taxes were different one year to the next it was because: (a) you had substantial differences in family/marital/personal status; (b) changed your tax withholding; (c) forgot to carry the one.
Considering Frank never finished the 8th grade (as evidenced by his lack of understanding of percentages), I’d go with (c).
Zython, could you stop being the class clown around here? What are you 12?
I know all you guys think I’m crazy and stupid and what not, but please, Zython, grow the fuck up.
“Wittle Fwankie”? gimme a break! I’m probably three times your age, you jerk!
The Wicker Man is fictitious, but I guess in your anime – filled world everything in the movies or on TV is real.
And if anyone hasn’t left the 8th Grade emotionally around here, it’s you, you chowderhead.
BTW, Zippy the Chimp’s dumber half brother, perhaps you can demonstrate where I lacked an understanding of fractions. I’d be interested.
You could be right, zadura, maybe I got a pay grade increase, as opposed to a step increse. Usually, the Internal Revenue Service likes it when their GS – 11 Revenue Officers can “carry the one”.
Besides, you’re getting Zippy agitated.
The Wicker Man is fictitious, but I guess in your anime – filled world everything in the movies or on TV is real.
A. Excuse me, I didn’t know what is was, and skimmed the wiki article.
B. That comment was still stupid and juvinile
C. Being told this by someone who obviously thinks of war as a video game, color me unimpressed.
BTW, Zippy the Chimp’s dumber half brother, perhaps you can demonstrate where I lacked an understanding of fractions. I’d be interested.
Remember when you were defending Dugger’s stupid “LA is more dangerous than Iraq” arguement? That’s what I’m referring to.
And if anyone hasn’t left the 8th Grade emotionally around here, it’s you, you chowderhead.
Let’s take a look at your great level of maturity you’ve expressed:
-”Zippy the Chimp’s dumber half brother”
-”chowderhead”
-”you jerk!”
And that’s not even getting into your OTHER posts. So yeah, once again, color me unimpressed.
Besides, you’re getting Zippy agitated.
I don’t know about that. You seem to be pretty agitated to me.
The Wicker Man is fictitious, but I guess in your anime – filled world everything in the movies or on TV is real.
A. Excuse me, I didn’t know what is was, and skimmed the wiki article.
B. That comment was still stupid and juvinile
C. Being told this by someone who obviously thinks of war as a video game, color me unimpressed.
BTW, Zippy the Chimp’s dumber half brother, perhaps you can demonstrate where I lacked an understanding of fractions. I’d be interested.
Remember when you were defending Dugger’s stupid “LA is more dangerous than Iraq” arguement? That’s what I’m referring to.
And if anyone hasn’t left the 8th Grade emotionally around here, it’s you, you chowderhead.
Let’s take a look at your great level of maturity you’ve expressed:
-”Zippy the Chimp’s dumber half brother”
-”chowderhead”
-”you jerk!”
And that’s not even getting into your OTHER posts. So yeah, once again, color me unimpressed.
Besides, you’re getting Zippy agitated.
I don’t know about that. You seem to be pretty agitated to me.
Sorry for the double post.
Zython, have some milk and cookies and take a nap.
So are you going to even acknowledge the statement that there was no Carter tax increase, or do you want to be a weasel all your life?
You could be right, zadura, maybe I got a pay grade increase, as opposed to a step increase
Jun 21, 2007 11:57:55 PM
You forced it out of me, Nimrod.
11 hours ago.
You ass.
I’m sorry…
Make that 23 hours ago
You ass.
So weasel it is.
{Note to Scotty: Never back Zython — never!)
First of all, Frank, I’ll back whomever I please if I think they are correct. I have backed you up on occasion (rare, to be sure).
Second, I’ll ask nicely; please don’t call me Scotty.
kthxbai
Nimrod Gently: You are an insignificant piece of shit. But false accusations piss me off.
I told zadura that maybe there was no Carter tax increase, because I now believe that I may have been mistaken.
Zadura did not provide evidence that there was NO CARTER TAX INCREASE, he just kept saying it over and over.
So, I will accept that it might be true.
If you call that weaseling, that’s just too fucking bad.
I was going to call you Duros — we had that discussion elsewhere.
But I looked up kthxbai
It says, “Generally used with contempt”.
That doesn’t quite square with “I’ll ask nicely; please don’t call me Scotty.”
Are you in that school of thought with the “morals whores” of LKTS that they only have to respect people that they CHOOSE to respect?
Or do think that since I started calling you Scotty because you weren’t being respectful to me, AND I already agreed to stop, because there was really no point, and you had asked me nicely, that I now return to the practice, because you have treated me “with contempt”.
I hope you can appreciate my dilemma. I hope you can now fully appreciate the significance of the saying, “Err in haste, repent at leisure”
And I wasn’t ordering you not to back Zython — I was giving you heartfelt advice. And I can’t ever recall your backing me. I only remember you invariant dogpiling — that’s what comes with behavior like yours.
“Are you in that school of thought with the “morals whores” of LKTS that they only have to respect people that they CHOOSE to respect?”
I think the real answer is you only have to respect those that earn it. You have done nothing to earn respect.
By the way, I find it funny that you think you can choose what other people are going to be called when you can’t even do that for yourself, Frank.
My name is Frank, asshole, what’s yours?
“My name is Frank, asshole, what’s yours?”
C.S.Strowbridge. … I thought that was obvious.
But I looked up kthxbai
It says, “Generally used with contempt”.
Well, I was not aware of that and did not intend it to be construed with contempt, Frank. I got it from lolcats and thought it was funny. Sorry if you didn’t.
I backed you early on when I first started coming here and wasn’t really aware of your MO. I’ve told you this before, but I will tell people I respect when I believe they are wrong.
So, you’ve started calling me Scotty because other people call you Frankie? Thanks, pal. I admit I have called you Frankie in the past, but not for almost a year.
Frank, in all sincerity, and you can believe me if you want or just call me a sycophant or whatever, but I do respect you. I disagree with you probably 98% of the time, but I respect you. I appreciate your service to this country, both in military service and civil service.
Not everyone here is here to taunt you, and you let too many people rent space in your head.
Don’t be so angry. It’s exhausting.
Frank, my source is the 1989 Economic Report of the President, which I have in hard copy. There are certainly websites that you can access to find this information as well. In 20 seconds of checking, I was able to find this, http://www.ctj.org/pdf/regcg.pdf, which lists the top tier and cap gains rates since 1916.
I wish you were simply able to say: “I was wrong.” There is no shame in it.
Zadura: I am not trying for a part in a “B” western movie. I know there is no shame in being wrong.
Please do not consider this an excuse — I have a point to make: When you have been called wrong dozens of times, when you are sure you are not wrong, you then hesitate to feed raw meat to the wolves.
see (for example)
So weasel it is.
Posted by: Nimrod Gently | Jun 22, 2007 1:00:14 PM
If you say there was no tax increase, I believe you. Maybe I got a raise that put me in another bracket, maybe there was a slight change in a deducted benefit.
But for me the math was simple: No major change in pay, no major change in take home, should equal no major change in WFT.
WFT – Tax Due was usually big refund.
That year (1977?) WFT – Tax Due = -$37
So, I must be wrong, but I don’t see how.
Duros: Read what I said again. I changed my handle. Everyone called me Frank anyway. So, one at a time, I started calling people what I wanted to call them, just as they were doing to me.
Now the clouds seem to be clearing, as there are at least three people I plan to heartily ignore in the future.
“I changed my handle. Everyone called me Frank anyway.”
But your name is Frank. On the other hand, I could understand being upset if we were calling you, “Frankie-baby.”
I don’t really care what you could or could not understand.
rwyhdgqm ntouwihm fsykuvnx wbmirxk tnghfuvbo vdxnkigo xiulq