Of course, this is completely silly. The full context is:
I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich.... I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.The ideologues are embarrassing themselves by trying to turn this into a statement that he doesn't care about or empathize with the very poor.
ADDED: Romney handles glitter-bombing with aplomb.
“This is an exciting time. I’m happy for a little celebration. This is confetti: We just won Florida.... We’re going to win the White House next. Let me tell you, President Obama is not going to be seeing a lot of confetti.”
Posts
218 comments:
1 – 200 of 218 Newer› Newest»That bastard doesn't care about the very rich either.
They have no sense of embarassement or shame.
The total lack of self awareness is the hallmark of lefties.
I'm going to cut and paste my comment from the previous thread (more relevant here):
I'm not sure the "not concerned about the very poor" comment will hurt Romney at all. The very poor weren't going to vote for him anyway. As for the rest of population, for a lot of them, their concern is that the very poor are getting too much of their money. They see them as takers. If this is true, how is a candidate that says he isn't going to worry too much about them going to lose their votes?
Let's remember how concerned our little Barry was yesterday over a software engineer who couldn't find a job.
He thought it was "interesting" and couldn't understand why the man was having a problem.
We're going to have a lot of these "I'll see your concern and raise you an interesting" exchanges with Zero coming out on the losing end.
If Obama could have created a 2012 Rep opponent, he couldn't have done much better than willard mittens, as Althouse and her flock will feverishly try to sarcastically apologize/rationalize mittens latest gaffe.
W/an occasional Obama deflection. :-P
I hate this kind of crap.
Well, at least he is honest that he doesn't care about them.
The problem is, once he's willing to write off one group of citizens ... what's to stop him there?
All your explanations are well and good, but it's not very reassuring to watch people get thrown under the bus.
And Mark displays what I meant by "this kind of crap".
Althouse and her flock will feverishly try to sarcastically apologize/rationalize mittens latest gaffe.
Get a grip man. Your shilling is embarrassing for your side. Spinning the alleged gaffe has been exposed as thoughtless fraud [stop helping him--Ed.]
shiloh said...
If Obama could have created a 2012 Rep opponent, he couldn't have done much better than willard mittens, as Althouse and her flock will feverishly try to sarcastically apologize/rationalize mittens latest gaffe.
The Demos are stuck with an aloof, narcissistic POTUS who makes things worse instead of better and gets snippier by the day. It's a bitter cross for the Lefties to bear.
Next to him, Milton is a happy warrior.
W/an occasional Obama deflection. :-P
Drooling again?
And Zero being as clinically detached as Mikey Dukakis at the question of what he'd do if his wife was raped and murdered isn't going to help his re-election chances.
Doubtful that the CNN news babe appreciates that her great looks, her ethnic name and her ethnicity are the main reasons for her success.
wv= fingr [what Newt gives the MSM]
wv= busta [what Mitt will move if he wins]
The ideologues are embarrassing themselves by trying to turn this into a statement that he doesn't care about or empathize with the very poor.
I have a bad feeling the idealogues will be successful.
If Obama could have created a 2012 Rep opponent, he couldn't have done much better than willard mittens
Someone who gives a shit would probably have to spend no more than a couple of minutes to pull up shilol's old comments saying this about every other Repub candidate.
Context is for the little people.
And by "little people" I mean people who don't agree with my opinion about the proper scope and role of government.
I do understand his explanation, but this is a "not ready for prime time" thing to say for a guy heading into a national election.
Obama and his ad folks won't be as reasonable as the Althouse crew.
And by "context" I mean accountability, honesty, nuance, and reason.
The ideologues are embarrassing themselves by trying to turn this into a statement that he doesn't care about or empathize with the very poor.
And Romney's enemies in the Republican Party are helping them do it.
I thought the Dems owned "nuance".
Harsh Pencil hit the nail on the head. Shiloh continues to prove himself to the village idiot hater. (It takes a village, you know.)
This is a big fucking deal.
The Dems will be quite crafty in taking on Romney.
By portraying him as an uncaring super-rich fat cat, and using Romney's own words to do it, they make him less attractive to the middle and they get the added benefit of putting other Republicans in the position of having to defend the super-rich.
All of which plays into their strategy of saying that all Republicans care only about rich people and are "not concerned about the very poor." The Dems, with their class warfare of the rich against everyone else, divide the country and then they manipulate regular Republicans into taking sides with the rich. It's win-win for them.
Mitt cannot see past the pre-2008 economy when the middle class could still be rescued.
After three years today's middle class, that are not working for the State and Federal Governments, have ended up as the new poor.
So who is Mitt abstractly caring about again? They are not abstractions. They are seriously hurting people who will not vote for someone they don't feel a connection with and trust to understand them.
Maybe because we're $15 trillion in debt worrying about the poor.
It's piss-poor phrasing.
He could have said the same thing in a fully bulletproof way:
"I care about the very poor. That's why we have a social safety net."
Romney's rhetorical devices of contrast -- "I am not concerned // I am concerned" -- lends itself to (intentional) misinterpretation.
What he should have done is use a string of value statements (three is always a good number):
"I care // I don't care // I'm concerned"
The Dems, with their class warfare of the rich against everyone else, divide the country and then they manipulate regular Republicans into taking sides with the rich. It's win-win for them.
Second verse, same as the first.
How many will fall for this same old ploy? It's a win-win for Dems, a lose-lose-lose for the country.
If some politician really cared about the very poor, they'd be for increasing their chances of success instead of increasing social welfare programs. There will always be people who are too handicapped (mentally or physically) to survive on their own. Taking care of them is the moral thing to do. However, there are millions of able bodied people who will do everything possible to suck off tit to get by.
Of course the progressive reactionaries don't like the complete observation. It does not benefit the minders of the very poor, the community organizers and overseers....
This is one of those cases where what really matters is the rhetoric.
Obama doesn't care about the poor. He has shown that repeatedly in a lot of his approaches and actions. He cares about rewarding his political friends, the poor be damned if they suffer for it. He'll make energy decisions that keep prices high in the very specific ways that the poor feel it the most.
But he says words about the poor.
Meanwhile, for all my differences with Mormons, they really do help their poor. So, Romney comes out of a tradition that assumes the poor are helped and important to take care of, but here doesn't think that the core issues of our economy are ones dealing with our social safety net.
The poor don't want concern, they want to not be poor. Obama and others like him want to keep them poor, because their power derives from rhetoric about the poor.
Just like Latin American caudillos have been doing for generations.
Matthew 21:28:
“What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’
29 “‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.
30 “Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go.
31 “Which of the two did what his father wanted?”
Which of the two candidates really care about the poor? The one who says he doesn't, but will help the economy so there are less poor? Or the one who says he does care about the poor, and will show his care by adding more to their numbers?
Overall, I expect this to have about the same impact of Obama's "bitter clingers" remark.
It's fun for the campaigners to use an opponents own words against him, but it's not like there's going to be any shortage of negative material.
Oh, and it was a terrible way to phrase it for Mitt. Really bad mistake that allows people to jump on him. He has to watch it.
"If some politician really cared about the very poor, they'd be for increasing their chances of success instead of increasing social welfare programs."
They'd also be for fiscal responsibility, because a country mired in debt can not provide for the poor nearly as well as an affluent one.
But that's too much nuance for the self-appointed guardians of the poor.
These people are not capable of being embarrassed.
One thing that puzzles me is the carping about Romney's wealth, when about half of the Democrat leadership can easily double that, certainly so if you include their husbands.
Uh oh. This remark could cost Romney the ACORN vote.
The left are so predictable. Boring. Desperate. Stale.
and wives.
"I'm not concerned about the very poor."
The ideologues are embarrassing themselves by trying to turn this into a statement that he doesn't care about or empathize with the very poor.
They don't have to "turn" anything. That is what the words that came out of his mouth actually mean. God help us, looks like another four years of O.
I note the well-known quote that the liberation theologians are turning to live in solidarity with the poor, but the poor are turning to Pentecostalism.
Liberation theologians came to the poor to explain to them why they are poor, the reasons of poverty were explained in Marxist ways, exploited by big business, etc., etc.
The poor said, ‘ah, ha’. But nothing changed.
One of the more famous liberation theologians, Gustavo Gutierrez, once said that the Pentecostal preachers went into the barrios not to tell the people why they are there, but how to get out.
Talking about work ethics, saving money, getting a better education for your children. The Pentecostals said to take the initiative. Don’t fall into apathy. "Paralysis of the analysis.”
So many who are poor do not want to know why they are in this bad situation, but how to get out. They don't want concern, they want to not be poor.
That is why Pentecostal preachers made such a radical influence in Latin American countries, much more than so many liberation theologians.
Rich and privileged people want to show concern for the poor, to assuage their own guilt. Poor people and those who really care about them, want to do everything they can to make sure they don't stay poor.
Pretty hilarious to hear Mitt! plead with the media to take his whole quote in context, after his team earlier intentionally hacked up an Obama quote, ran ads with it, and his team boasted about how they punked the media to get attention.
Who cares? Neither Obama or Romney gives shit about the working people. Obama killed Keystone XL and Romney fired alot of people so he could make even more money.
One day someone will run on a platform of helping keep working people working. Screw the poor and the 1%.
The Song Of The Fisher Kings, Barry And Mitt
Gonna build me a safety net, gonna build it wide,
Gonna build it cross the river till it reach to the other side,
Gonna catch me poor fish, gonna stop they flow,
Gonna net 'em all so independence they may never know.
Truthfully Obama already has all the ammo he needs to bury mittens, but willard is the gift that keeps on giving ~ god er joseph smith, jr. love him!
Indeed, as now "we" see why conservatives picked McCain over mittens in 2008 as it was a no brainer ie a flip/flopping war hero over a flip/flopping confused pup.
BREAKING NEWS: The Glitter Bomber, as captured on surveillance video.
I am sensing a shift here, Romney seems relaxed, playful even, with the crowd. Add in his secret service detail which gives a presidential aura & i say this guy is going to be alot more formidable a candidate than some give him credit for. I notice also is wife Ann who does alot of the intro's for Romney at events, shes terrific!
Paddy O: Nice explanation of historical liberation theology. But the truth is it took hold in the Roman and Anglican precincts here in the US, that is for sure. From the pulpit the word count tilts towards "fair" "equitable" "just" and away from "sin." Funny word that last one. Rarely used. Especially in churches.
"They are seriously hurting people who will not vote for someone they don't feel a connection with and trust to understand them."
So long story short: they don't have anyone to vote for.
Interesting.
This message brought to you by Obama 2012: If everybody can't be rich, everybody should be poor.
Gonna be a long, nasty campaign--the Obama smear campaign has already started and will continue unabated until November 4th--Hell--and obama can't even read his own teleprompter: 22 million jobs created--oops 3 million. (he did, however, realze he read it wrong and corrected it post haste). We have an incompetent idiot for a president--The proverbial syphlitic camel could do better.
"As for the rest of population, for a lot of them, their concern is that the very poor are getting too much of their money. They see them as takers."
Of course this is the reason why the poor and those on welfare have long been demonized...to divert attention away from the those who are really stealing the wealth from America's workers: the elites at the top.
The poor get crumbs while the rich eat cake, and we're taught to hate the poor for their crumbs and say, "Let them eat shit!"
shiloh said...
Truthfully Obama already has all the ammo he needs to bury mittens, but willard is the gift that keeps on giving ~ god er joseph smith, jr. love him!
Which will mark GodZero (and shiloh) for the racist he is. The Mormons renounced the doctrine of the Sons of Ham some time ago and have distinguished themselves by their outreach to blacks.
This one will blow up in Zero's puss big time.
Indeed, as now "we" see why conservatives picked McCain over mittens in 2008 as it was a no brainer ie a flip/flopping war hero over a flip/flopping confused pup.
Well, at least shiloh isn't so delusional he fails to recognize McCain's war service.
No flip, no flop, no pup, confused or otherwise.
In '08 Romney had distinguished himself as a business man and had saved the Salt Lake Olympics, as well as being Governor of MA.
The Demos were stuck with two Senators, one who coasted on his race, the other who coasted on her sex, neither of whom had ever done anything on their own.
And they're still stuck.
NPR sliced the quote into tiny bits, just playing the "don't care about the poor" in Romney's voice and then going on and reporting the rest a piece at a time in the reporter's voice.
word verification: bariman = most MSM journalists
I predict Romney cruises up to a lead in the polls of about 57-43 and maintains that cushion right thru election day, November 2nd!
The American are sick & tired of blowhards and incompetence in govt. Romney is perceived as the opposite of that.
President Obama is not going to be seeing a lot of confetti.
Now he's a racist. OMG!!!
Ann wrote, "Romney handles glitter-bombing with aplomb." I guess we could say an activist gave him the raspberry, and he responded with a plum.
Amartel said: This message brought to you by Obama 2012: If everybody can't be rich, everybody should be poor.
Alas...The Parable of the Gas
The first link "a lefty feeding frenzy" appears to go nowhere.. thats from my computer.. dont know about anybody else's.
I am sick of media and political campaigns doing this dishonest "sound bite quote taken entirely out of context " gotcha!! game.
It doesn't advance true voter awareness..it is emotional manipulation by clever little wordsmiths and copy editors at its stupidest and most cynical.
Add to that a pols sentence some odious person has said.
Obama - "I hope we meet some Al Qaeda terrorists and bring them to justice!'
Ad - You may not have heard, but President Obama wants to be friends with Muslim Evildoers!! Listen to what he said.."I hope we meet some Al Qaeda terrorists. Yes, you heard right, our President sees them as people he wants to meet! HOW DARE HE!!
John Boehner 2011 - " As for OWS protestors, we must keep order so those people to not create any trouble or violence in our cities."
Bull Connor 1963 "We have a duty in Alabama not to allow these protests to cause trouble or violence in our cities."
Ad - John Boehner, no different than Bull Connor firehosing civil rights demonstrators in Selma. In the words of Civil Rights legend John Lewis..."Haven't we learned? For pity's sake..haven't we struggled to come through the darkness?"
It doesn't surprise or bother me that the left is inflamed and overreacting to this. I expect as much. But I'm sorry to see so many conservatives trying to use this against Romney. It's just silly.
Of course this is the reason why the poor and those on welfare have long been demonized...to divert attention away from the those who are really stealing the wealth from America's workers:
Yawn.
On a more interesting note, could you revisit the "national service" thread and explain what you found interesting about the Starship Troopers movie? I'm curious.
It may have been bait from the Romney campaign to get the lefties to overreact.. and while overeating inadvertently promote what Romney said.
Nice trick, if it was on purpose.
edutcher mistakes sarcasm w/racism ie if what my groupie edutcher said was true, all of Althouse's sarcastic foot soldiers would also be considered racist!
Oh wait! :D
btw, why is it mostly conservatives who are fixated on race/racism.
hmm ...
Some nights shiloh goes to bed with a Little Black Sambo doll. Other nights shiloh goes to bed with a Bull Connor doll. Hard to say which doll makes him happier.
Romney is like a great surgeon, but his bedside manner is non-empathetic.
His target audience has always been his Daddy's approval and his friends that invest capital with him at Bain. They would only reward cold targeting that ignores human emotion like a sniper can hold his breath for a kill shot.
So let's let him operate on the patient, and then judge his work.
He is what he is. RomneyCare is what it is.
During the campaign we need to keep him away from media interviews and just have others tell about his wonderful surgical success stories.
And they're still stuck.
Just who are the rising stars in the Democrat's horizon? If there are no decent replacements, people might give Obama sympathy votes. Garage will say "Feingold" but he's more likely to stay ensconed in Wisconsin.
Wasserman-Schultz?
Rahm?
Some third-generation Kennedy?
ricpic, really ~ is that the best 'ya got? ie "attempted" childish personal attacks. Rhetorical.
Indeed, your inane post is one of the reasons Althouse brags about her blog lol.
Too late for Newt to use it. Not that it would help.
Go to the check cashing counter at Wal-Mart today or tomorrow (being the 1st of the month). The poor are being taken care of fairly well.
But then go to the middle class professional who has been laid off after years of hard work.
I understand what Mitt is saying.
Just who are the rising stars in the Democrat's horizon?
Democrats usually come out of nowhere. Who heard of Clinton 4+ years before he was elected? Ditto Obama.
"Democrats usually come out of nowhere."
Whereas Reps are usually stuck in a rut ie Dole, McCain, mittens ...
er sloppy seconds. :D
Ann - "Of course, this is completely silly."
It's not the least bit "silly." It's only the people on the far right (Ann and Meade included) who think such inane comments are..."silly."
It's just another example of Romney (the 250 million dollar man) not thinking before he speaks.
He does follow up with the rationale that if there are problems..."hell fix 'em."
Really? Just like that, as the new President, he'll make sure that if there are any problems or holes in that safety net...he'll just fix it?
How? What will it cost? Who will pay? How soon will the nets be "fixed?" What do the poor do while he's fixing it?
Mitt should stick to what he knows:
Making sure the wealthy...have even lower taxes than they do today.
It was really a silly way to phrase things.
He could have said the same thing, by that he's worried about policies that force the middle class to slip back into poverty, and close off avenues for the currently poor to grow into the middle class. He could have noted that you don't help the poor by making poverty more comfortable, but by building a society where with some work, they can stop being poor.
But instead he says "I'm not concerned about the poor; they have a safety net".
Robert Cook said...
Of course this is the reason why the poor and those on welfare have long been demonized...to divert attention away from the those who are really stealing the wealth from America's workers: the elites at the top.
Yes!!!
Every dollar earned by a "rich" person is a dollar taken away from the "poor" comrade!
Chuck66 said..."Go to the check cashing counter at Wal-Mart today or tomorrow (being the 1st of the month). The poor are being taken care of fairly well."
What the hell are you talking about?
Are you saying that people who cash their checks (I'm assuming you must be referring to welfare check) must be doing just fine...because they're cashing those checks?
Are you daft?
How many "very poor" have cell phones?
How many "very poor" miss a meal?
Of course liberals "care" about the "very poor" because they want them in public housing and on food stamps.
Which is like, so great.
shiloh said...
edutcher mistakes sarcasm w/racism ie if what my groupie edutcher said was true, all of Althouse's sarcastic foot soldiers would also be considered racist!
I forgot what a masochist shiloh was.
He calls anybody who bitch slaps him a groupie.
btw, why is it mostly conservatives who are fixated on race/racism.
Conservatives judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
Which makes the Lefties the ones fixated on race because yelling, "Raaaacisst", is all they've got.
And even that's going away after the one hit Oneder.
"I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling."
I'm puzzled by Willard's math. As I recall, about 15% of Americans are living below the poverty line.
If Willard says he doesn't care about the very poor and the rich, shouldn't his "struggling" "heart of America" percentage be less than 85%?
Willard is very bright so it's hard to believe he can't subtract. This must be a secret Willard strategy. Maybe the point is that, by Willard's way of thinking, living below the poverty line doesn't make a person very poor. Living below the poverty line is probably just plain old poor while living in a cardboard box and eating rotting food from trash cans is very poor.
Liberals are so irrational. Everything can be explained logically if we just change a few definitions.
Good work Willard! This is a winning campaign message.
Democrats usually come out of nowhere. Who heard of Clinton 4+ years before he was elected? Ditto Obama.
Roe Effect in effect.
Jay - You really need to read more before posting silly "comrade" tripe.
A study by the Congressional Budget Office, found that income has become dramatically concentrated, shifting heavily toward the top earners between 1979 and 2007.
It's among the top 1 percent where the growth was breathtaking. That contingent saw their incomes spike by 275 percent.
The hoarding at the top was so great that even after accounting for taxes, the "income received by the 20 percent of the population with the highest income exceeded the aftertax income of the remaining 80 percent," the CBO found.
Wages for the lower and middle classes have hardly moved for the last three decades.
Today, the 400 richest people in the country control more wealth than the bottom 50 percent of households, and the U.S. ranks roughly alongside countries like Uganda, Cameroon, Ecuador and Rwanda in terms of the gap between its richest and poorest citizens.
“This is an exciting time. I’m happy for a little celebration. This is confetti: We just won Florida.... We’re going to win the White House next. Let me tell you, President Obama is not going to be seeing a lot of confetti.”
Sometimes I think Willard could have been a poet.
Willard needs to work on his wave; it's not very presidential. :(
The hoarding at the top was so great that...
I stopped reading after you chose that verb.
Jay said..."How many "very poor" have cell phones? How many "very poor" miss a meal?"
Can you provide the numbers for us, Jay?
*And wht in the world does having a cell phone have to do with being poor? You can buy one for $20.
Lefty feeding frenzy. Really?
chickenlittle said..."I stopped reading after you chose that verb."
Actually it was the CBO that used it.
Give them a call and see if they can find another to your liking.
As to chickenlittle's being upset at the use of the term "hoarding" by the welathy: anybody who follows the financial pages knows that the banks themselves have been "hoarding" massive amounts of money over the past two years because of low interst rates that produce smaller profits than they would would like to make (wouldn't we all?)
There's a big difference between "saving" money and "hoarding" money.
Hoarding does nobody but the hoarder any good.
@Love: If the CBO used the term, I apologize to you. But you misrepresented it. Look at your use of quotes in your comment.
BTW, which part did you write?
@Love: So after you devolve all this "hoarded" wealth downwards, what is your plan for making more? You sound just like our President.
I stopped reading after you chose that verb.
Illogical. The verb was chosen when the post was written, well before you had a chance to read any of the post. To be accurate, you stopped reading after you read the verb and became upset by it.
@Willard:
Illogical??
Love gave no link!
I took her comment at face value. So sorry...
"From the pulpit the word count tilts towards "fair" "equitable" "just" and away from "sin." Funny word that last one. Rarely used. Especially in churches."
Michael, very good point. That's probably why I come off more conservative hereabouts. I think the danger for liberation theologies has been over-identifying with established cultural and political causes, and in doing so losing another side of the Gospel, and losing even an emphasis on the poor they seek to help. One looks the other way on corruption issues, and other moral issues, and one undermines what we all are to be liberated into.
We're not to be pharisees, nor are we to be zealots.
I spend a whole lot of my time around the Christian Left, so that's probably why I tend to be more upset with them, then with the usual suspects on the Right.
Well it's not on the New York Times front page, but you know how they love a feeding frenzy. It must be buried in there somewhere.
Damn those lefties and their frenzies.
@Love:
I'm waiting.....
chicken - Hoarded money doesn't "devolve"
downwards.
That's the whole point of hoarding it.
It's the same reason banks "hoard" it...so they don't have to lend it out at low interst rates.
What are you missing here?
Love said...
Jay said..."How many "very poor" have cell phones? How many "very poor" miss a meal?"
Can you provide the numbers for us, Jay?
*And wht in the world does having a cell phone have to do with being poor? You can buy one for $20.
Ever hear of minutes? It's the upkeep that adds up.
But there are ample statistics on how many "poor" have a Wii, game console, big screen TV, etc.
The "poor" in this country enjoy the most comfortable poverty in history.
PS The BLS doesn't count food stamps, welfare, and other government goodies when figuring how many "poor" there are.
chicken - what are you waiting for?
The article was written by Michael McAuliff and Alexander Eichler referncing the CBO report.
Just be honest. In part 'concern about the very poor' is a cultural thing. In the Catholic Church, there seem to be often prayers that include 'visiting the imprisoned' and I feel a little guilty I don't know anybody in prison. Maybe they don't have prayers like that in the Mormon Church. We're, in a sense, hiring a private equity guy, to help with the economy. He probably didn't get to be a private equity guy thinking 'I'm concerned about the very poor.' Moreover, that sort of concern is often politically expressed as 'they are part of a persecuted minority who need a community organizer to help them get favors from the banks.' Our hiring, as president, a private equity guy means accepting he is maybe 'not one of us' in terms of shibboleths.
What are you missing here?
I'm missing what your preferred plan is for redistributing the "hoarded" wealth.
Or are you not in favor of that?
I don't think I heart Willard really hearts Willard. It's that leftist devilish misdirection again. Why must they torture a good heart like mine the way they do? A regular coven they are.
edutcher - "But there are ample statistics on how many "poor" have a Wii, game console, big screen TV, etc."
Provide all of these "statistics" you refer to.
And be sure to tell us where you got them.
PaddyO. Thanks for your thoughts. I have one foot in Rome and one in Cantebury. I focus as much as possible on the liturgy, the mass, and less and less on the political end. Try as i might i still strain to hear some judgement, some indication of the old foundations of a known right way to live. I give money to the house for recovering addicts who are set on getting out of addiction and, to your point, poverty.
Feh. The media is like a car alarm, where it just annoys the sleeping neighbors. And, goes off with regularity. Heck, a truck passing down the block can set it off.
If you want to believe Romney's gonna win; and you don't see any problems with that ... it still doesn't cover all the votes you need, come next November.
2012 will be different than 2000. Where you had two terrible candidates. And, a pretty even divide when the process of counting votes was over.
Back in 2000 there were plenty of republicans who didn't think Dubya was up to the job. But they thought Dick Cheney would be the adult in charge.
Little do some people know about power! (Of course, now you've adjusted to Obama's "desecrations" in office, you do allow that power, there, goes to the heads of of those who get "in.")
Stopping Newt for now is also not stopping the problem.
Love wrote (or quoted): Wages for the lower and middle classes have hardly moved for the last three decades.
You fingered (or quoted) others saying that wealth "hoarding" was an issue. What is your plan for getting those middle incomes moving again?
chickenlittle - Let me explain what these wealthy "hoarders" could do for the economy:
They could do what the GOP keeps telling us the reason they need even lower taxes (zero for capital gains)...is to do what they're supposedly already doing: creating jobs.
Instead of hoarding money, they could invest in start-up companies, invest in companies doing business right now, invest in ideas that could develop into new companies and new jobs.
What they are in fact doing is investing in stocks (and please don't tell me stock investments create jobs), existing real estate that has bottomed out (no, that doesn't create jobs either) and protective bonds.
Does that answer your question?
chicken - You can't just tatget one element of the article or report.
Hoarding is one problem.
Stagnating wages and income is another.
Do you some kind of reading comprehension problem?
Misrepresenting what people say is the tactic of those who have no substance to address the real comments that Romney has made.
Which is that the Democrats' policies have been disasterous to our nation's economy. The current CBO estimates of less than 3% economic growth for 2012 - which are based on ridiculously low estimates of inflation and so probably are too optimistic in methodology - show just how much the current administration's policies are sabotaging the American economy's natural strength in recovery.
Back in 2000 there were plenty of republicans who didn't think Dubya was up to the job. But they thought Dick Cheney would be the adult in charge.
Dick Cheney was a good man as VP. Much better than Joe Biden.
You were right earlier. Obama should consider dumping him.
"Illogical. The verb was chosen when the post was written, well before you had a chance to read any of the post. To be accurate, you stopped reading after you read the verb and became upset by it."
Plus, even though clittle stopped reading, he/she felt compelled to make a reply lol.
>
Having also been known to parse words, logical or otherwise :D I ♥ Willard appears to have Althouse's conservative flock totally flummoxed er verklempt.
ok, ok, as that's a typical day at this blog.
"I don't think I heart Willard really hearts Willard."
ricpic, as always, is a day late and a dollar short lol.
ok, several days ...
"Love" gives us the usual Stalinesque rhetoric. The "rich" are "hoarders" and "wreckers".
Remember, the Kulaks had it coming to them.
chicken - here's a little "hoarding" inforamtion relating my previous comment regading real estate:
L.A. Times - In the Southland's $1-million-and-up market, 29.2% of buyers paid cash last year — the highest percentage since 1994, DataQuick statistics show.
For homes selling for $5 million and up, 62.2% paid cash.
Overall, cash deals constituted 27.8% of Southern California home sales in 2010, the most since DataQuick began tracking the market in 1988.
It's also more than double the 13% average for cash sales over the last decade.
How many jobs do you think any of this created??
...they could invest in start-up companies, invest in companies doing business right now, invest in ideas that could develop into new companies and new jobs.
Restore the trust that Obama destroyed...put a businessman in charge instead of a community organizer...and might just see that happen.
Instead we've got endless Solyndra scandals (and DoJ scandals).*
_________
*The DoJ remark was gratuitous. :)
Love said...
*And wht in the world does having a cell phone have to do with being poor? You can buy one for $20.
It has a whole lot to do with it.
See, "poor" has been redefined by ignorant people like you to mean "anyone who is not rich"
But of course you're stupid and a crowd of 1, so there is that.
At a restaurant last night, I got a good glimpse at how the manager believes his business will be busy when the Superbowl gets tuned in.
His incite? Mexicans and Chinese are not drawn to football. And, tend not to stop to watch the big Superbowl playoff.
Sure. He could remember back when on Superbowl Sunday, he'd look out at the street (where there's usually lots of traffic), and not a single car would go by.
But just like the social conservatives tend to be older white people ... Maybe, there's about 50% of the voting population who aren't white.
Even Romney's win in Florida doesn't tell you much. Other than that older white women didn't like Newt.
That's not enough.
Trying to pick candidates for other people, is like trying to pick mates for your children.
So, for your information; calling in the matchmaker is not a custom we have anymore.
There isn't even a market for a cell phone app, where parents can guide their own children to "good mates."
And, you're trying to convince a whole lot of other people that Mitt's got no competition?
We're not in the year 2000 anymore. And, both parties are finding it very hard to attract new adherents.
What if Mitt Romney is just another Nelson Rockefeller "wannabee?"
Oh, PS. Most people aren't concerned about the very poor.
Robin - And now we're once again back to the communist/socialist blow back.
C'mon...insted of the usual Limbaug/Hannity, etc. drivel...provide any realistic response to the information or opinion I provided.
Love said...
How many jobs do you think any of this created??
So when Obama and Pelosi say that unemployment benefits create jobs, you ask how and how many, right?
Love said...
Provide all of these "statistics" you refer to.
And be sure to tell us where you got them.
And then what?
Are you pretending any statistics on the matter will change your silly views?
Jay - Your response is nonsensical.
Cell phone purchases by the poor is not a huge problem.
As for who is defined as "poor," sure it's chaged. It changes all the time...so what is your point?
You're not very good at this, are you?
How many jobs do you think any of this created??
Hello? Have you looked into financing a home purchase in SoCal lately? Credit is tight. No wonder only cash sales at the top are happening. Without those sales there would hardly be any sales at all.
Also, do you know people who bailed on loans?
Jay, based on your last few comments I'm afraid I'll have to pass on trying to discuss or debate anythig further.
You just do not appear to be very bright.
Love said: You're not very good at this, are you?
*waves at shades of Jeremy*
Love, do you have a cite for the CBO hoarding statement? I googled cbo and the hoarding quote and all I got was HuffPo.
I'm on your side about the problem with income inequality. More layoffs announced at work today but the top executives got over 20 million in bonuses last year. What would that be? 500 good paying jobs?
Again screw the poor. They sit on there ass all day watching their big screen TV (I dont have one) and cable and playing XBox. At night their little thugs go out and steal, rob and terrorize.
the U.S. ranks roughly alongside countries like Uganda, Cameroon, Ecuador and Rwanda in terms of the gap between its richest and poorest citizens.
This comparison is meaningless.
Since 'Love' is too lazy to do the 30 seconds of Googling it would have taken to find this, here is a very detailed and though-sourced list of what the poor in America had in 2005. A couple of highlights: 32.2% had "more than two" televisions, and 17.9% had at least one big-screen TV. There's lots more at the link, and it's pathetically easy to design a Google search that would find plenty more information, if you actually want to know the truth.
Love. Nearly all home sales are all cash to the seller so the "all cash" conceit is meaningless. The seller either buys a new home or invests it. If the latter then it is stimulative to the economy.
Love said: You just do not appear to be very bright.
Damn, are you trying to sound like Jeremy?
ove said...
Cell phone purchases by the poor is not a huge problem.
Huh?
Who said it was a "problem" again?
chicken - "Hello? Have you looked into financing a home purchase in SoCal lately? Credit is tight."
Good lord...
It's not just tight credit...that's the bank's side of it.
I just mentioned banks hoarding money and you immediately make my point.
The reason the cash purchases are taking place is because of the depressed market, tremendous deals on homes costing over one million dollars...and the fact that people actually have (hoarded) the money to pay.
The article didn't mention people paying cash for moderately priced homes...but homes costing 1-5 million and UP.
Love said...
Jay, based on your last few comments I'm afraid I'll have to pass on trying to discuss or debate anythig further.
You just do not appear to be very bright.
Simpleton:
You're projecting.
Note you ask a bunch of questions but refuse to answer any directed do you.
Want to guess why that is?
chicken - have you read the last few comments via Jay?
Leftards in bloom. The english language eludes them. Clearly the word context even much so.
Oh, and according to the United Nations, 98 percent of undernourished people live in developing nations.
But this idiot love is asking for statistics!
As if she could possibly process them.
Love said...
edutcher - "But there are ample statistics on how many "poor" have a Wii, game console, big screen TV, etc."
Provide all of these "statistics" you refer to.
And be sure to tell us where you got them.
OK, how's this grab you?
The original data, as the article notes, is from the Census.
The study got tons of coverage. For those paying attention.
Michael - Someone selling their home, then buying another home only helps the economy if the next home is a new home. If it already exists the money goes to the seller...who in turn...on and on.
And that's based on them actually buying a new home. Many of the people selling these homes already own other homes and do not buy another.
And many of the homes that are being bought are in trouble, foreclosure or damn close to it.
If you have twenty bucks, you ain't poor!
Love. How is it hoarding to pay cash for a home? Perhaps the buyer sells his business for the cash or he sells securities. Your point on all cash real estate purchases does not make the poin you think it makes.
"Try as i might i still strain to hear some judgement, some indication of the old foundations of a known right way to live."
Keep straining to hear, because I have hope there's going to be a lively chorus again. Both Canterbury and Rome have some good folks pointing in good directions. We're in a really reactionary time throughout the church, so once that cools down, there really is an underlying message of responsibility throughout all the good liberation theologies. I've spent more time with the German's than the Catholics or Anglicans on this topic, but I think Moltmann and Bonhoeffer (two of my favorite guides), speak rightly of an activist church that is very serious about the whole Gospel.
Indeed, it's part of my personal and professional goal to keep pushing at what you're talking about. I have a lot of hope in the Church, in most of its various forms, even as I have frustrations coming at me from both sides.
Love said...
Provide all of these "statistics" you refer to.
Um, ok.
80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. In 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
92 percent of poor households have a microwave.
Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.
Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV.
Two-thirds have at least one DVD player, and 70 percent have a VCR.
Half have a personal computer, and one in seven have two or more computers.
More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation.
43 percent have Internet access.
One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.
One-fourth have a digital video recorder system, such as a TiVo.
For 2009, the survey showed:
96 percent of poor parents stated that their children were never hungry at any time during the year because they could not afford food.
83 percent of poor families reported having enough food to eat.
82 percent of poor adults reported never being hungry at any time in the prior year due to lack of money for food.
The worst part of this quote is, "the safety net".
He has to be the worst candidate ever, except maybe that guy from Alaska that threw a rock in a lake.
He also is such a fucking liar and flip flopper.
The only thing going for him is he is rich, which I like.
And the story about the wife telling him the country needs him a year ago and as a result he decided to run at that time...pure bullshit. He was running the day after Obama got elected.
And what about the fucking dog. The wife said it lived a long time after it's wonderful trip to Canada and one of the Osmond sons said it ran away when it got to Canada. He definitely won't get the dog lovers vote.
Love. A non new home purchase stimulates the economy to the extent the seller downsizes, realizes a profit or decides to rent. You are not making the point you want to make.
Oh and 42 percent of poor households actually own their own homes.
Michael, one more thing. I've noticed that the core Liberation theologians themselves often do have that balance. It's the pop stuff that misses it, and then gets fed into churches. It doesn't take long, for instance, in reading Gustavo Gutierrez to realize the man is very interested in holiness as well as liberation. People like to liberate from, but forget what they're liberating into, and if not focused that result could be just as bad or worse than what came before. That's precisely why John Paul II got feisty about the Marxist language. He was Polish and knew what that could lead to, and it wasn't liberation, it was repackaged oppression with a added dose of societal immorality.
garage mahal said...
If you have twenty bucks, you ain't poor!
Thanks for chiming in with idiotic, meaningless drivel.
@Titus: How is the clumber?
You didn't respond (or didn't see) my earlier request on TY.
November 2nd ain't election day. November 6th IS. And, Americans don't take marching orders!
Reagan had coattails that over time grew longer.
None of the current crop have coattails. And, both party's suffer.
For Mitt? He handed away his victory. That's why the media tagged his remark about the poor.
Is it an asset, yet? Well, it's not on par with the way Reagan went after Welfare queens!
Mitt, as Reagan, is an imposter.
It's not my fault that the GOP doesn't have better choices.
It's not my fault that the GOP doesn't have better choices.
Nor is it my fault that the Dems only have Obama.
Roe Effect in effect.
Thanks for chiming in with idiotic, meaningless drivel.
You're the one that asked how many of the poor have cell phones.
Incidentally we'll probably be making cell phones here soon, instead of the Chinese.
USA!
garage mahal said...
You're the one that asked how many of the poor have cell phones.
Which of course has nothing to do with defining poor as having $20.
Incidentally we'll probably be making cell phones here soon, instead of the Chinese.
With nimble union fingers?
Or is this another one of your "secrets"?
Nice to see you totally beclown yourself yet again Garage in the gallup thread.
You're literally unbelievable.
Anyone with a brain and self respect would stop posting here.
You'll carry on.
OMG - another campaign-killing gaffe!
Google search for Romney and "I'm not concerned about the very poor": About 168,000 results.
Google search for Romney and "I'm not concerned about the very rich": About 60,500 results.
In other words, about two-thirds of the accounts of this comment are deliberately withholding the context and are misrepresentations.
On the plus side, one-third of the media are almost honest. Isn't that more than you would have guessed?
How did Willard get to be a nickname for Romney?
You see, I remember when the Monica story "blew up" ... And, out of the closet came the Blue Gap Dress. BINGO! Willard was Bill Clinton's nickname.
Mitt's not randy. I don't get the reference.
And, by the way, I don't think white voters countrol the way people win elections.
For the pubbies, alas, the social conservatives hold sway. And, if you want my opinion, McCain was a better choice than Romney, going back to 2008.
Nope. I didn't vote for McCain, either.
Like Florida, when 2008 got all counted up, we saw McCain got 47%. That's not enough to win over the number of voters you need to win.
Obama?
Well, people want less government. And, no one does LESS than Obama. Maybe, that's desirable?
Most people, when they lose their jobs, don't blame the president of the United States.
It's not going to come down to religion, either.
But ya know what's interesting to me? One day after the Florida "blow out" ... And, we're talking about how Mitt doesn't care about poor people.
We've had excellent comments showing up, here. Because, yes. Mitt should'a phrased it another way. DIDN'T.
As to his "confetti," ... No. It was the blood of Newt Gingrich that splattered on him. And, ya know what? I expect a rematch.
What will Newt do in a rematch?
It didn't even take the Superbowl to shut Romney's victory lap down.
Paddy O. " and it wasn't liberation, it was repackaged oppression with a added dose of societal immorality."
Bingo! Liberation FROM is only part one. Part two is TO. And in my opinion that "to" is freedom that comes to those who work and who value the dignity and liberation that comes with it if one simultaneously eschews the trivial material things that seem so important.
Micro finance in the third world beats out liberation theology at every turn.
why is it mostly conservatives who are fixated on race/racism.
Is this a serious question?
Here is a list of people with a fixation on race:
Juan Williams: 1/2012, It's racist to say poor people should want jobs rather than food stamps.
Jimmy Carter: 9/2009, claiming people who oppose Obama are racist.
Eddie Bernice Johnson: 9/2009, When asked if Obama opposition is race based "we think most of it is"
John Lewis: 3/2010, claimed Tea Partiers called him a nigger despite there being literally hundreds of cameras and microphones around him without capturing anyone saying nigger.
Kanye West: 3/2005, "Bush doesn't care about black people"
Ed Shultz: 8/2011, Perry's reference to "big black cloud" was racist.
The list goes on and on. Care to guess whether or not the above were conservative or liberal? People like you have to keep focus on race claiming conservatives are racist, otherwise you lose every election forever. Your ideology is a collosal disaster, so tarring the political opposition as racist is your only hope.
garage mahal said...
If you have twenty bucks, you ain't poor!
Well then, now you have something to aspire too.
Nice to see you totally beclown yourself yet again Garage in the gallup thread.
You're literally unbelievable.
And I responded. Which means you got owned, again.
Jay said...
Love said...
Provide all of these "statistics" you refer to.
Um, ok.
80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. In 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
92 percent of poor households have a microwave.
Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more cars or trucks.
Nearly two-thirds have cable or satellite TV.
Two-thirds have at least one DVD player, and 70 percent have a VCR.
Half have a personal computer, and one in seven have two or more computers.
More than half of poor families with children have a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation.
43 percent have Internet access.
One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.
One-fourth have a digital video recorder system, such as a TiVo.
For 2009, the survey showed:
96 percent of poor parents stated that their children were never hungry at any time during the year because they could not afford food.
83 percent of poor families reported having enough food to eat.
82 percent of poor adults reported never being hungry at any time in the prior year due to lack of money for food
All the while 48% of american households, thanks to GW don't pay federal income taxes on top of that. The poor rarely pay taxes outside of sales taxes. They go so far as to not even pay state sales taxes as well. The notion of being poor in this country is a fucking joke. From the latest statistic that I could find which goes back to 2004 from the WHO only 120 people in the US died from starvation. Even with that number I've never, in my life ever heard a single story of someone dying of starvation in this country outside of it being deliberate or due to a disease.
Leftards in this country carry this fucking lie with them daily. They believe these lies and pass them off as truths. Why? Because they believe in an ideology that is inherently a lie to begin with and in doing so will believe any lie that ideology imposes upon their shallow thinking minds.
shiloh said...
why is it mostly conservatives who are fixated on race/racism.
You are out of your fucking mind, you rancid little bitch. Leftards like you are the ones that carry racism around like a hammer, clubbing anyone over the head with it that you think or even implies a hint of what you think racist is. It's leftards like you that are utterly fixated on race. You bring it up constantly and incessantly. You believe this bullshit to the point that if given facts to you that democrats are the party of racism you would utterly reject it. Please please please ask me to prove this to shatter your bald-fuck faced lies.
garage mahal said...
And I responded. Which means you got owned, again
Your "response" is silly, illogical drivel.
But again, you'll carry on.
And wht in the world does having a cell phone have to do with being poor? You can buy one for $20.
That's the point. There aren't any "poor" people in the US, merely rich people, very rich people, and ludicrously rich people. The "poor" people you lament don't want for any basic necessities of life and in fact enjoy many luxurious trappings of wealth, like a cell phone.
These "poor" people enjoy many, many luxuries, such as stoves, electricity, central heat and air, refrigerators, cars, etc, but are unable to enjoy some of the luxuries that richer people can enjoy. No one in the US wants for food, housing and basic medicine.
Methadras - tell us how you really feel man, wow!
Apparently the concept that people have the right to do what they want with their money eludes people like Love.
But, then, so does the Constitution.
Carol_Herman said...
How did Willard get to be a nickname for Romney?
It's his given name, dear. Willard Milton Romney.
For the pubbies, alas, the social conservatives hold sway.
Sure they do.
garage mahal said...
And I responded. Which means you got owned, again
You lied in your response, you silly little troll.
You are out of your fucking mind, you rancid little bitch.
Welcome to Althouse, the friendly blog!
I wish liberals would stop whining about Willard's foreign bank accounts. After all, don't most of us have Swiss bank accounts as a prudent hedge against a federal government that increasingly threatens to confiscate our wealth?
TRUMP GOES TO VEGAS!
Drudge just posted this. Supposedly, tomorrow, there's a good chance that Trump will endorse Romney.
Well, there goes my 3rd party ticket.
But if Mitt's bouncing forward, why does he need Trump? Is this a chance to "switch" the message to "businessmen?"
Well, nobody said it's not an interesting election cycle.
Willard, huh? What an odd first name to give a child. At least they didn't call him Carroll.
We should let Hollywood name children. Oriented towards sales, they came up with John Wayne and Marilyn Monroe. Fame followed.
And I responded. Which means you got owned, again.
@garage, I used to look at those PPP polls you linked on Twitter. I followed them for a while even.
I don't much care what others say if they lean right-I didn't find them so. Definitely Dem. And I do still have both wings intact. :)
Mittens is a good name for a kitten.
Mitt is a good name for a big, sloppy dog.
Willard is a good, sturdy, presidential name.
"You are out of your fucking mind, you rancid little bitch."
Another reason Althouse is damn proud of her blog lol.
And Methadras et al conservatives have pretty much proved my "fixation" point. :D
This is a huge issue because Obama has created a lot more poor people. But, Obama is concerned about them.
You are out of your fucking mind, you rancid little bitch
And yet, I'll bet it does smell inside that space suit you're always wearing. When's the last time you changed you underwear?
And don't tell me the answer "depends"
Well of course he doesn't care about the poor; that's true of all rich people. Well maybe not Warren Buffet, and that Greek guy and the Hollywood wealthy, they care.....
But certainly business rich, like Banker rich and Investor rich, especially religious rich folks, they don't care about the poor.
(PS Did you know white people are racists?)
Getting to Know Willard
(Part 2 in a 538 part series)
Willard was named after his father's pal J. Willard Marriott, founder of the Marriott hotel chain.
I don't much care what others say if they lean right-I didn't find them so. Definitely Dem. And I do still have both wings intact. :)
I just crushed Jay with facts in that thread by the way.
When's the last time you changed you underwear?
It's good to know that chickenlittle has a hobby. o_O
"Yes, that's right, I collect information from my fellow Althouse readers about their underwear-changing habits."
To save you the task of asking, I change my underwear daily.
You're welcome.
Is Jay the guy who tells Andy again and again and again and again that he's ignoring him?
Who cares about the poor, they are revolting.
In addition, they need better lobbying power.
and to the libtards on this thread.....these are JOKES.
@ Love
Everytime a dollar changes hands for whatever reason and is used for any purpose it increases the velocity of money.
Carol Herman, I believe Trump will endorse Gingrich tomorrow. You should be excited!!!
To save you the task of asking, I change my underwear daily.
Just turning it around from front to back doesn't count.
Oh, hey, I just saw this comment from Jay:
Anyone with a brain and self respect would stop posting here.
Good stuff! Keep it coming, Jay!
(PS Did you know white people are racists?)
Phil's childish sarcasm aside, actually, 9% of Reps voted for Obama in 2008, gasp!, many of them white ;) and 43% of white folk overall voted for Obama.
Hell, even Althouse voted for Obama. :D
Indeed, as he received 69.5 million votes, (7) million more than cheney/bush in 2004.
Just the facts as "we" now return you to Althouse conservative fiction er their misguided opinions.
Just turning it around from front to back doesn't count.
Good to know you finally learned that lesson!
"Good to know you finally learned that lesson!"
But DBQ also turns it inside out!
Continuing the inanity. :)
Hell, even Althouse voted for Obama.
Voters don't come any whiter than Althouse!
The Professor ♥s Willard so she won't be voting for the black candidate this time around. Sadly she tried to blame us for her decision to vote for the commie in the last presidential election.
But DBQ also turns it inside out!
Rumor has it that she wears it as a hat on Fridays.
Willard, you give off the distinct scent of someone I've smelled here before as well.
I didn't want you to get jealous of "Love."
You're in my thoughts too. :)
I ♥ Willard said...
Is Jay the guy who tells Andy again and again and again and again that he's ignoring him
Um, no.
But thanks for your concern.
garage mahal said...
I just crushed Jay with facts in that thread by the way.
If by "facts" you mean you linked to something which doesn't say what you says it does.
The road company of Dumb and Dumber returns.
Can't wait for Meade to thin the herd.
"Can't wait for Meade to thin the herd."
If Meade would have thinned the herd previously, edutcher, Jay et al would have already been bounced. But Meade also has empathy ...
One of those compassionate conservatives!
The road company of Dumb and Dumber returns.
Can't wait for Meade to thin the herd.
We'll miss you and your insipid comments. Take care.
I think as long as the comments stay reasonably on topic and the commenters don't get all stalkerly, Meade has little reason to delete. But I am not Meade and not even sure I'm on his good side these days. JMHO
"If I ever get rich I hope I'm not mean to poor people, like I am now." -- Jack Handy
chick, the last time we had an echo chamber like this, Miss Ann put the hammer down.
Considering shiloh's had his plow cleaned on everything he's tried to raise, all that's happening now is his and ♥'s mutual fellating.
PS Note please, neither shiloh or his butt boy have been able to knock down anything the so-called lemmings have used in rebuttal.
The best he's got is the Kos pollster and a Gray Lady blog.
edutcher are you totally frickin' delusional as I've never had my clock cleaned at this low brow blog. Not even close little buddy.
Pleasant dreams ...
shiloh said...
edutcher are you totally frickin' delusional as I've never had my clock cleaned at this low brow blog. Not even close little buddy
Hysterical.
Um, here is a hint: you are not educated, intelligent, or informed enough to grasp when some refutes your silliness in its entirety.
chickenlittle,
For what it's worth, I would protest vigorously any attempt to delete your contribution to the Professor's blog.
@edutcher: Don't take it personally. I'm usually on your side. I am amused at how some of them try so hard for different "incarnations" (insilications I argued on etymological grounds elsewhere). That does require a talent--one which I lack at least.
As for Althouse, she has stated that she won't let this blog become "right-wing" and I suspect that that goes so far as to encourage the artifical semination with left wing ideas. :)
Roll with it and don't let it get to you.
_____
wv = epeste [lol]
Um, here is a hint: you are not educated, intelligent, or informed enough to grasp when some refutes your silliness in its entirety.
Here's a hint: when you refer to one of the Professor's guests as "not educated, intelligent or informed," it's best to make sure you use clear, sound sentence structure with proper word choice.
I hope this helps. Good luck!
Post a Comment