Beginning any minute. Watch here.
ADDED: "If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. And I'm happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador who had nothing to do with Benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and besmirch her reputation is outrageous." I detected some inappropriate/bogus chivalry — the man saying come after me, not the woman. I consider that how-dare-you attitude a distraction, a push back. But he's right that the criticism should be aimed at him!
November 14, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
442 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 442 of 442Shorter Althouse comment boards over the last week:
Ermagerd.
Implosion.
O Ritmo said,
...explain to your inferiors why they need to give more capital to people already too resentful to put their record profits into job creation.
But we already know the reason: They're resentful for not being lauded for having the power to hold America's jobs hostage. And America just happens to think that's a shitty thing to reward them for.
Hear hear! End corporate welfare! End stock profit welfare!
I guess reality bites.
And when their worst case scenarios fail to materialize, they will be devastated all over again.
I've noticed this, and my unscientific (not having done statistical analysis) is that if libs aren't in the threads there's way fewer comments. They even turn the snark on each other.
I agree with you, Ritmo, there's a degree of implosion going on. I've wondered whether this blog wouldn't implode for good if the libs went away.
But then the commenters who prefer just being nasty might end up beating their children or tearing the limbs off small animals. So you see, all this does serve a purpose.
Maybe.
Ha! SO true Leslyn!
It's absolutely true. And then you have the lead blogger hammering away with the Ermegerd while also trying to convince everyone she is "distancing" herself from politics.
The truth isn't even that they got a spanking. It is that they didn't get the extra cookies to which they think they are entitled.
That's what's sorta sad.
It’s just so cute when you libs talk amongst yourselves. Almost quaint, in a very down-market Bloomsbury-bitch sort of way.
That's perfect, Lydia. Altbury.
Clearly, Ritmo is Keynes, w/ leslyn as Virginia Woolf. harrogate as Strachey, I suppose.
But Inga. Who is Inga? Lydia Lopokova, I suppose. Smitten w/ Maynard, but kind of a ditz.
harrogate as Strachey, I suppose.
A martyr to the piles.
@Chip S:
Thank you, but I'd rather be Dorothy Parker. Round tables suit me; triangles do not.
Sorry leslyn. I'm saving the Altgonquin for my righty pals. ;)
Or Inga could be Maud, the maid. She must have had to dose or submerge crazy-mad Virginia in a hot bath now and then, so right up Inga’s alley.
How can you, Chip? The Algonquin was definitely not "right." How many of them got blacklisted?
No, you'll have to find another group. I'd suggest Monty Python, but first you'd have to teach them about that exotic concept, "humor."
Which would probably be viewed--perhaps correctly--with suspicion.
And when their worst case scenarios fail to materialize, they will be devastated all over again.
You voted for the man, so let's take a unified view. What's going to happen to GDP, unemployment rates, and the obligations we place on future generations, now that Obama is re-elected?
Also, since I assume you voted for the country, at what point do you think he will have failed? That is, GDP, unemployment rates, and the obligations we place on future generations.
I've noticed this, and my unscientific (not having done statistical analysis) is that if libs aren't in the threads there's way fewer comments. They even turn the snark on each other.
Unlike you, who have zero snark at all =)
I think disagreement and discussion are healthy. The world is imperfect, and disagreements are a good way to explore ones own view of the world.
Now, I have visited liberal blogs, and they typically go much like you and Inga are discussing. There is little disagreement. There is a harmony of thought. However, there is always a healthy dose of disdain for republicans.
There are two ways to read this. The first is that the leftists feel they are in the minority, when they are not. They have the presidency, they have the senate. Recently, they had a supermajority in the senate, owned the house, and the presidency. That has not stopped liberals from "Blaming Bush," though I don't recall Bush "Blaming Cinton" for the tech bubble.
There is another explanation, which I think makes more sense. I'll explain it this way. I sometimes go to churches, not because I'm religious, but because I don't understand it. There are people of all colors, creeds, etc., there. During sermons, music, etc., they all have a kind of freedom of acceptance. It kind of goes like this: Hallelujah! Hallelujah, Brother! And things like that. It's total acceptance. Liberals are much the same way.
The base assumptions are not questioned. I asked Inga a question, which I keep asking, and which she won't answer. It's unimaginable to her that her base assumptions might be wrong. If the reality does not match, something is wrong with the reality. And the favorite whipping boy is the Republican, especially the evil RICH republican. I have a different view, in that I think Democrats and Republicans are both beholden to the wealthy, and I've provided facts to support this.
But, none of this will change your mind. Why is that? Why doesn't reality have an effect on your thinking? Because you are unwilling to dig down to the base abstractions that form your position. That's the essential problem. You are stuck in pre-reformation times, with the new religion being this axiomatically inconsistent religion "Leftism." It doesn't matter how many times it has been shown to not work, it doesn't matter that Europe is on the brink of a major economic catastrophe, it's still right.
People see the unrelenting hordes, and say "But!", but but goes in one ear and out the other.
End stock profit welfare!
What is this? You are aware that the accounting rules were changed in a way that is entirely disadvantageous to startups, and people trying to start up companies, don't you?
I hate slogans. But since you have used one, please give me a really strong understanding of what you mean.
The Algonquin was definitely not "right."
True. They were heavily into Marx.
"But then the commenters who prefer just being nasty might end up beating their children or tearing the limbs off small animals."
This remimds me of a post a while back, "Why are you wingnuts so insulting". Leslyn, uh, "passes" the IQ test LOL.
And Inga agrees with her!
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Jesus. Your an idiot.
Does anyone else see the irony in this sentence?
Ask your savior if he can teach you to spell first, and then maybe explain to your inferiors why they need to give more capital to people already too resentful to put their record profits into job creation.
But we already know the reason: They're resentful for not being lauded for having the power to hold America's jobs hostage. And America just happens to think that's a shitty thing to reward them for.
In this case, America would happen to be right. And a number of capitalists, more decent than the lot of many of you Althousians, know this.
The president ran on his message, and he won. He has the mandate for the taxation regime that two-thirds of the country have always agreed with. The Grover Norquist Revolution came and went. It was not televised, but held in "quiet rooms", with pledges signed and stored in safe deposit boxes.
Take your sekrit pledges and your silly clubhouse manifestos and get it the hell out my government.
Full of sound and fury. Signifying nothing.
What I told was going to happen is happening. Why are you so bent out of shape? Why so hysterical?
I don't know who's the bigger drama queen you or Inga.
leslyn said...
@Chip S:
Thank you, but I'd rather be Dorothy Parker. Round tables suit me; triangles do not
Alas, Dorothy Parker had wit.
"Why are you wingnuts so insulting"?
That's a why question I don't think we're going to discover the answer to soon. The question is how do we deal with the situation?
The answer is not to vote for them or their cause.
I'll never get used little box typing.
Market was up 30, dropped 200+ points while Obama was talking.
Market is already down 5% in the week since the election.
If Obama would have lost, the opposite would be true. The market would be soaring and confidence would be restored. Now - listen to all the leftwing "economists”. They know we are headed forward into recession territory. If Obama gets his way with his bad math tax rape on the job creators, it will be even worse.
btw- the tax hikes on "the wealthy" would only pay for about 11 days of government spending. Expect at least 200,000+ job losses. Job losess are just frosting on Obama's welfare cake.
It should be a great 4 years watching the bottom fall out of the economy while the little assholes gather to cackle with glee that they won.
Adding to my lengthy comment from last night, there is also laundry to be washed, food to be purchased and cooked and served, plus kitchen cleanup.
So for a change Inga was right about something -- the $6000 per month that people pay to put their parents in nursing homes goes to much more than the wages for patient care staff.
Inga, care to comment?
[I'm joking, of course. Inga only comments about things she knows nothing about.]
And when their worst case scenarios fail to materialize, they will be devastated all over again.
The equations are what they are. People who are knowledgeable about mathematics go with what the numbers say. And what they say is that the best case scenario for the next four years is really, really bad.
Other than living in remote areas that have no cable ... why?
Ever hear of satellite TV? Basically, the only people who can't receive “cable” live in high polar regions like the interior of Antarctica.
I have to admit I'd probably quit coming if Inga and garage stopped bringing the stupid. Especially Inga's special stupid. I appreciate you guys.
AprilApple said...
I'll never get used little box typing.
Market was up 30, dropped 200+ points while Obama was talking.
Market is already down 5% in the week since the election.
If Obama would have lost, the opposite would be true. The market would be soaring and confidence would be restored. Now - listen to all the leftwing "economists”. They know we are headed forward into recession territory. If Obama gets his way with his bad math tax rape on the job creators, it will be even worse.
btw- the tax hikes on "the wealthy" would only pay for about 11 days of government spending. Expect at least 200,000+ job losses. Job losess are just frosting on Obama's welfare cake.
But rich people have to be taught a lesson!
We'll be lucky if the economy just stagnates.
X said...
I have to admit I'd probably quit coming if Inga and garage stopped bringing the stupid. Especially Inga's special stupid. I appreciate you guys.
we're givers that way
it's just fun to watch her tie herself in knots and flip flop positions. I think her gay fetus war on women was my favorite.
Rusty said...
leslyn said...
@Chip S:
Thank you, but I'd rather be Dorothy Parker. Round tables suit me; triangles do not
Alas, Dorothy Parker had wit.
Alas, you missed the point. Again.
leslyn said...
Rusty said...
leslyn said...
@Chip S:
Thank you, but I'd rather be Dorothy Parker. Round tables suit me; triangles do not
Alas, Dorothy Parker had wit.
Alas, you missed the point. Again.
Are you saying she wasn't a wit?
Dante said...
End stock profit welfare!
"...please give me a really strong understanding of what you mean."
Income is income is income. Doesn't matter what source is derives from. It should be taxed at whatever is the regular rate for that individual. Capital gains is income, whether it come from stocks or from the sale of a home.
Romney's argument that his capital gains were already taxed at the corporation doesn't hold water. (Especially if he was holding General Electric.) Look at other forms of income and you will find taxation behind them. Doesn't stop people from gaining income.
Income is income is income.
I had to smile at Ritmo, leslyn, and Inga's little conspiracy theory about "the rich" being "too resentful to put their record profits into job creation".
Sources of amusement:
1. "record profits"
2. "America's jobs".
3. "Hostage"
4. They seemingly think that, e.g., the Koch billions are kept in a giant vault instead of being invested in stocks, bonds, etc.
5. Not taking from someone = rewarding them.
The punchline: Inga's comment that "reality bites". How'd she know? :)
leslyn
I apologise if I've offended you.
Income is income is income. Doesn't matter what source is derives from. It should be taxed at whatever is the regular rate for that individual. Capital gains is income, whether it come from stocks or from the sale of a home.
That's a nice assertion. I'm not certain I disagree with it, but it's one of those nuanced topics. Lower capital gains rates provides advantages to new businesses. Putting in money to new businesses is inherently risky, as the Obamao must now know.
Remove the incentives, and there will be less money flowing to new ventures. Is that what you are talking about, Leslyn? You are so certain of your position that you would affect the formation of new businesses?
Meanwhile, the US Government already screwed over workers in terms of gaining new stocks, in a way that makes it less desirable to work hard. Due to tax laws, companies no longer give out large numbers of shares at the current price of the stock, as an incentive to work hard to raise the stock price. They have to give out shares with the value of the current share price. Really stupid, in my view. It's the wrong incentive, and the wrong policy.
Romney's argument that his capital gains were already taxed at the corporation doesn't hold water. (Especially if he was holding General Electric.) Look at other forms of income and you will find taxation behind them.
That's not really true. Corporations pay taxes on profits. Employee salaries are an expense; thus, most of our incomes weren't taxed prior to us receiving the money.
The other problem with your argument is that capital losses represent negative income. It is possible for a person to have an "income" of "negative several billion dollars" in any given year. If a person earns -$1 billion in a year, do we cut them a check for $350,000,000?
Now, you might say "well, they just don't pay any taxes that year". But consider this scenario:
Year One: Invest $500,000
Year Two: Bad economy. You have to sell half your investment for only $50,000. Income that year: -$200,000. You pay no taxes.
Year Three: Your investment booms, and you're able to sell the other half of your investment for $400,000 -- a $150,000 gain on that part of the investment. You're hit with a federal tax bill of around $40,000.
See what just happened? You're paying taxes even though your overall income was negative.
In order to get around this, losses need to be carried over from year to year. But when we used to allow this, is caused the usual suspects to scream and whine that "the rich" were "paying no taxes" -- because the average billionaire actually can take years to recover from a big loss.
leslyn
I meant the other time when I assumed too much.Which was rude and ill mannered of me. So i apologise for that.
Not for the above which was funny, because you are not a great wit, but you are intelligent and can give a challenging arguement when you're not being all snarky an shit.
So again I apologise.
Post a Comment