Let’s do this again soon
Republicans are crazier than I imagine possible even taking into account the fact that they are crazier than I imagine possible.
It appears that the debt ceiling deal under consideration includes $ 1 trillion in cuts, no tax increases and setting up a committee to pretend that there will be $ 3 trillion more. This shows that the Democrats are spineless and that they know the Republicans really are crazy and aren’t bluffing.
But wait not so fast. There is a stumbling block
But the two sides were still fighting over how to force Congress to produce the second round of savings. Boehner wants to set another debt-limit vote early next year, while Democrats are insisting on a plan that would postpone another debt-limit showdown until after the 2012 presidential election.
So far the Republicans have forced the very serious villager radical centrists to admit that they are crazy. New headline: “Opinions on existence of planet differ, maybe the Republicans don’t have a point.” They have also convinced a majority of self described Republicans that they are too unwilling to compromise and that taxes on the rich should be increased.
Thus they have decided that they are doing so well that the demand a chance to do it again just before an election.
Robert quips: “Thus they have decided that they are doing so well that the demand a chance to do it again just before an election.” And in between they will fight over the FY 2012 budget.
Living outside the borders may leave you at a disadvantage to sense the mood of the voters, but they clearly felt last year and continue to support cutting spending. Those they voted in to perform this function are being successful.
CoRev,
The mood of the voters or Grover Norquist channelled by the Murdoch propaganda slime empire?
A mg at De long’s posted the Roman republic ended when it could not do the easy things or such.
Norquist is no Pompei or Julius, but the US congress is beginning to look like the Roman senate, sitting aside watching the private interests get in the way of the best interests of the republic.
The republic dies when the powerful interests subordinated the public good, and the republic’s institutions let it happen.
I have quoted Yeats, he believed in a gyre of inexorable trends, he though the end was 1914, he may be correct and we are in a stage of the end gyre.
Is Norquist Pompei or Julius?
Who cares? Norquist is no more aplayer than Yeats. He’s just another idea man.
Some ideas!!
Getting tea party congress folks to sign pledges…………………………
All he needs to do next is make sure the circuses (NFL/NBA) go on time and he can look out for a Brutus.
Yeah that idea he cooked up with Abramoff and Ralph Reed to defraud Indian tribes by lobbying to get them casino licences while also ginning up conservative opposition to casinos was an impressive one.
On the other hand he’s neither homo-nor-islamophobic so probably has a limited future in the GOP anyway.
Did you folks know that the Whitehouse had no representative at the Saturday meeting that Obama demanded Friday?
That’s leadership! And you guys want to talk about Norquist, a non-player?
I dunno, given the impact the administration has had on the process so far that might actually be the best they could do. I am reminded of this quote from the old 80s movie War Games:
Joshua: A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?
Matt Weurker did a nice job capturing the GOP strategery here:
I note by acknowledgementt Wuerker’s deft interpretation of BO and the democratic leaderships ineffectual role.
The conclusion of this article
How to Do Nothing and Balance the Budget
: http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/billtatro/2011/07/23/how_to_do_nothing_and_balance_the_budget is pretty much what I’ve have been saying is the reality for some Congress critters.
“So, it comes down to this: Pass something, anything, and you put off a balanced budget.
Pass nothing and the balanced budget is NOW.”
It isn’t my solution, but continuing to fight a balanced budget amendment without a reasonable explanation doesn’t improve the democratic position.
Last year, the federal government collected over $2.16 trillion in tax revenue, most of it (over 50%) on the backs of the top 20% of income earners. This is roughly the same amount of money that Bush had to spend during his time as President. Bush, in spite of cutting taxes and fighting wars around the world, only ran annual deficits of between 300-500 billion (except his last year in office, when they bailed out the banks, although most of that was paid back with interest).
Shouldn’t Obama be expected to be comparable, or is it now okay for him to run annual deficits 4X to 5X the size of the Bush deficits, forever, to achieve the performance that our economy has sunk to?
CoRev,
The President and Vice President attended the meeting on Saturday.
MG, I got it from a quote from IIRC the Chris Mathews show this AM, so have no links. Do you have one?
Well at least we know what Chris Matthews and your definition of leadership is. MSU (Making $hit Up)
Funny thing is the top 20% collects 60%+ of the income of this country.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
The reason the Bush deficit closed in the 2004-2006 period is that $2T/yr of private debt was being pumped through the economy:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1f7
and
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1f9
(blue line is the private debt take-on, red line is gov’t surplus/deficit)
The reason the deficit is so high now is that tax revenue is $500B below the peak, event though GDP has technically recovered, the defense budget is $200B+ higher than 2007, and we have $200B more or so of social spending (unemployment, food stamps).
Individual + corporate income taxes is $1.3T now. On a $15T economy, that’s just laughable.
We really gotta raise the taxes in this country.
CoRev,
Here: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0723/Obama-and-congressional-leaders-hold-grim-Saturday-meeting-on-debt-crisis
Yeah all we have to do is identify that key demographic segment which has high income/liquidity but minimal political influence.
Uh oh.
$1T of Conservative Teacher’s $2.16B is social insurance payments:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=FRSI
So salaries under the FICA cap are paying ~50% of the total tax burden now (except for the 3% of salaries above the cap) just towards “entitlements”.
I am in the USA now. A bit disoriented, so I carelessly read a CoRev comment. CoRev have you heard of this new invention called “polling”. 54% of self identified Republicans declared support for raising taxes on incomes over $250,000. It is not good for elected Republicans to have their number one priority totally rejected by an absolute majority of Republicans.
Corev: If you insist on talking about US public opinion please do not ignore all of the relevent data. I won’t notice how you respond to this request, since I will try not to forget my resolution and read anything you write.
Dear ilsm
Time flies. Things change. Grover Norquist is now very clearly very far to the left of the House Republican caucus. He just (reluctantly) declared that McConnell Reid is acceptable to him.
If the House Republicans have lost Norquist, they are unlikely to give us a Pompei or a Julius. I’d say they are aiming for Crasus
the third guy in the triumverate. He decided it would be a good idea to invade Persia and ended up dead with all of his soldiers and on the list of 10 worst generals of all time-
Conservative Teacher
The except for the last year shows what happened. The huge Bush deficit were not largely bailing out the banks (which was scored as adding to the deficit although as you note, it didn’t). It is the consequence of a huge recession (on Bush’s watch and clearly caused by insane deregulation as noted by Ayn Rand’s close friend Alan Greespan). This causes low revenues and high spending on safety net programs.
The deficit forecast for next year is not at all due to Obama. The Republicans refused to allow tax cuts on incomes over 250,000 to expire (note above 54% of self identified Republicans in the latest WaPo poll say this would be a good idea).
The reason huge deficits are now fine (and should be huger) is that we are in a liquidity trap. The problem with deficits is that they drive up interest rates and crowd out private investment. Interest rates are now extraordinarily low. Basically every economist who admits that there can be such a thing as a recession agrees that spending should be increased not cut.
Thanks for contributing.
You count fighting two wars as if it were exogenous. One of them was totally pointless insane idiocy due to Bush.
“ It is the consequence of a huge recession (on Bush’s watch and clearly caused by insane deregulation as noted by Ayn Rand’s close friend Alan Greespan).”
the recession was not caused by deregulation. Deregulation, along with the tax cuts, interest drops, and innovation in suicide loan products, was contributory to the insane increase in household debt 2002-2006.
the recession was caused by this debt stimulus being taken away 2008-now. Households were getting $100B per MONTH in debt take-on during the bubble. This is negative today. Pain must appear in this reversal, and pain will continue.
Reinstating the Clinton tax rates on the top brackets is only good for $80B/yr or so, peanuts in the scheme of things. Welfare, defense, and health spending are EACH up $200-300B since 2007 while the tax take is back to 2004 levels:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1ff
We’re $700B/yr over bubble-level spending without a bubble-level economy any more, even though GDP is supposedly back to the bubble.
Pull out that $700B/yr boost and we’ll see how much an economy we really have left.
Robert since you won’t read this I’ll just put it out there for the others that will. Since Bush had in your estimation a war that was totally pointless insane idiocy, from that you must consider Libya sound, pointed and sane policy.
And then you must consider it the purest policy to release a known really, really bad Iran associated jihadi, known to have killed Americans, to Iraq or to hold them on ships then release them solely because we do not want to house any more at Guantanamo.
Finally, now that you are back in the states, except for the few Sr Obama hangers on BDS was cured in 2008. Now the embarrassment is to admit one voted for … well you know.
“Basically every economist who admits that there can be such a thing as a recession agrees that spending should be increased not cut. “
We could do with spending less on stuff that is uneconomic.
Not counting SSA, we’re spending $3T this year. At $100,000 per job that’s THIRTY MILLION jobs.
Where TF is this money really going???
Alternatively, $3T per 100M households is $30,000, or 1 out of 2 or 3 households should have a well-paying government job. Is this the case?
There’s obviously a lot of uneconomic waste if not outright fraud going on here.
“Since Bush had in your estimation a war that was totally pointless insane idiocy, from that you must consider Libya sound, pointed and sane policy. “
So far, yes. It’s a sad day when conservatives are arguing for keeping Col Muammar Khaddifi in charge of Libya. Can’t you guys see yourselves?
Taking out Saddam is going to cost the US around $3 TRILLION dollars and thousands of US KIA.
Libya is not 0.1% of these costs yet, for the same payoff if not better, for you to equate these two actions is completely asinine.
’twas a good troll tho.
Robert, BTW, like AS you have missed my point. It was the voters want reduced spending. If you are going to respond, at least stay on subject. Please do not notice this response. 😉
Troy sigh, and you called my response asinine, then said this: “Alternatively, $3T per 100M households is $30,000, or 1 out of 2 or 3 households should have a well-paying government job. Is this the case?”
Late story from wapo indicates Boehner is going to try to call Obama’s bluff on a short term debt limit increase guaranteeing this will be debated again before Nov 2012 (If he passes it, hardly a done deal).
This extension of a non existent crisis by refusing to govern can only burnish the GOP’s brand at this point. Well played Mr. Speaker!
I see I made a mistake in responding to you. I won’t make that mistake again.
What Obama has failed to understand is that he is no longer in Chicago, epicenter of political compromise regardless of the cost to good government. He doesn’t appreciate that what most Americans seem to admire is a brawler, a head cracker who can twist the arm of an adversary rather than compromise his ideals. Maybe though Obama’s ideals are not what we have all thought them to be. He’s the President for Chr____t’s sake!!! He controls enough governmental departments to cause significant pain and discomfort on a line by line basis. His AG is running helter skelter looking for boogie men, but can’t see the perps lounging about all around the country in plain sight. The President can’t pass a money bill, but he can control the expenditure of funds that have been legislated. Obama thinks he’s playing a board game called Government. That’s his weakness. Americans don’t respect conciliation. They expect conquest. And yet he’s got the Constitution on his side.
Bill Clinton Says Debt Ceiling Unconstitutionalhttp://econospeak.blogspot.com/
Troy, you call my comment asinine and then call me a troll, and don’t expect a response? When you personalize snark expect it back.
I’ve been especially testy this week end after watching jack and Dale (Coberly) gang up and try to drive off another noob.
Looks like Dems have released trial balloon similar to Boehner’s with deeper cuts, $2.5T which will extend the debt ceiling past the elections.
The final may look closer to the Dem’s than a smaller shorter republican version. Regardless, there will almost surely be a short term small cut bill to get the final version drafted and passed.
White House Confirms It Will Likely Sign Any Debt Deal Congress Sends
From here: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/24/white-house-confirms-it-will-likely-sign-any-debt-deal-congress-sends/
Oh bullshit Co Rev. Norquist is not important in himself but in the institutionalized message making he is and has been the titular organizer of for a couple of decades now. In fact back in the day of Bush triumphalism they actually went on record and bragged about it to the point that it was a cover story on USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-06-01-grover.htm “Norquist’s power high, profile low”
“Grover Norquist calls on a White House official, who rises to thank more than 100 conservative activists for their help in passing the sort of sweeping tax relief this group has been pursuing for years at weekly strategy sessions known as “the Wednesday Meeting.”
But the agenda is full with other issues as well: confirming conservative judges. Battling curbs on guns. Boosting Republican congressional hopefuls. And, of course, cutting more taxes.
This nondescript room in an L Street office building is the incubator for Bush’s political strategy, one that puts his conservative base first and foremost. That strategy has succeeded in winning a tax cut much bigger than experts once thought possible, but it also helped tip control of the Senate to the Democrats by pushing moderate Sen. Jim Jeffords from the GOP fold.
And it has put Norquist, 44, at the center of action. Short and owlish, a master networker and ebullient believer in the therapeutic value of cutting taxes, Norquist launched the Wednesday Meeting eight years ago to wage guerrilla warfare against the Clinton administration.”
snip
“Bush has been sending a representative to the Wednesday Meeting for two years, since before he formally announced his presidential candidacy. Now a White House aide attends each week. Vice President Cheney sends his own representative. So do GOP congressional leaders, right-leaning think tanks, conservative advocacy groups and some like-minded K Street lobbyists.
The meeting has been valuable to the White House because it is the political equivalent of one-stop shopping. By making a single pitch, the administration can generate pressure on members of Congress, calls to radio talk shows and political buzz from dozens of grassroots organizations. It also enables the White House to hear conservatives vent in private — and to respond — before complaints fester.”
This is and has been the heart of the much mocked “Right Wing Noise Machine”, it was just that in June 2001 the Norquist/Rove machine was so filled with hubris to brag about it to USA Today.
Really the only question is whether you take your marching orders first, second, or third hand from the Wednesday Meeting. And I guess whether you are sufficiently compensated. But the idea that Norquist is some peripheral figure is just nonsense, Christ all you had to do was open your copy of McPaper ten years ago. Not everybody was sleeping.
“No more a player than Yeats”. Yeah right, which is why Cheney sent a rep each week. Pull the other finger. Norquist is still the designated message crafter for the Republican Party just as he has ben since 1993.
Norquist is not an Islamophobe. For one thing he came to power at a time when the Republican Party, particularly in the person of Bush I was bound at the hip with the House of Saud and eager to build bridges to a relatively wealthy Muslim-American and particularly Arab-American constituency.
Plus Norquist’s wife is a Muslim. Which these days probably would be a fatal wound for an up and coming Republican politico but which made perfect sense back in the day. But I am thinking that Grover openly espousing the idea that all Muslims were by nature terrorists might make for some trouble in the connubial bed.
Meanwhile, in the real world, polls show that voters favor both spending cuts and revenue increases. We now return you to CoRev Fantasyland.
That’s any legislation that passes both the House and the Senate. So what’s the big revelation in that report? If the House and the Senate ever agree on the exact manner in which the Congress as a whole will screw the vast majority of the American people I’m sure that the President of the One Percenters Club will be happy to claim that a bi-partisan agreement has been reached that will “secure the future of all Americans.” The question will be just how poisonous the results will be for the majority of Americans.
Troy,
“Libya is not 0.1% of these costs yet, for the same payoff if not better, for you to equate these two actions is completely asinine.”
What payoff? The $3 Trillion is both Iraq and Afghansitan over 10 years.
Jack,
“So what’s the big revelation in that report?”
Because Obama threatened to veto any legislation that didn’t meet his end of the deal. Legislation that reaches his desk, is most likely not going to have all of Obama’s approval…therefore as Joe Biden says….”That’s is a Big F’n Deal”
“The question will be just how poisonous the results will be for the majority of Americans.”
How can debt negotiations be anymore poisonous than the election of Obama and two years of a Democratic Majoirty in both Houses?
“How can debt negotiations be anymore poisonous than the election of Obama and two years of a Democratic Majoirty in both Houses?”
How? Just add a Republican majority in the House with no agenda other than interfering with the process of governing.
“Because Obama threatened to veto any legislation that didn’t meet his end of the deal.”
How difficult is it to imagine that what ever may pass the Senate will meet with Obama’s “end of the deal” criterion?
Are you really that obtuse? Or, am I beginning to detect a slight ting of bigotry in your assessment of the President?
Jack,
The President’s job is to lead….he clearly is not doing that. His focus is re-election. What exactly is “Bigoted” about pointing that out?
Again, The republicans have offered a debt ceiling plan and a budget, where is the Democratic Debt Ceiling Plan and Budget? And yet, Republicans are the one’s “interfering with process of governing?” I Don’t Think So!
That may sell at NYT or MSNBC, but nobody with any understanding of whats is going on beleives that.
Jack says: “How? Just add a Republican majority in the House with no agenda other than interfering with the process of governing.”
Perhaps you missed my weekly reports of the status of the FY 2012 appropriations bills in the republican controlled House. Check and see how the democratically controlled Senate has done on appropriations.
Perhaps we need to review the actual written and voted upon budget and debt ceiling legislation. Republican controlled House 1) FY 2012 Budget Framework, 2) 1/2 of the appropriations bills passed, 3) 3-4 of the remaining appropriations bills passed through committee ready for floor vote, and 4) Cut, Cap, Balance (CCB) act. (Plus probably 1-2 more that I am forgetting.)
Democratic controlled Senate 1) FY 2012 defense appropriations bill passed committee.
Spending bills must originate in the House, but not having seriously worked any of the FY2012 House passed appropriations bills, and tabling a vote on the CCB. And that’s after the democratically controlled House and Senate only passed a continuing resolution for FY 2011.
And you, and most other Dems, blame the republicans.
A former teacher with a history of foreclosure and liens for failing to pay income taxes, Walsh ran against runaway spending in Washington and the health-care overhaul law and won his swing district in 2010 by just 291 votes. He defeated Democratic Representative Melissa Bean, who had the support of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business organizations.
Walsh, with a financial rating of zero, is making decisions about how this government should pay its bills. Walsh is a Republican representative from Illinois and as you could gues a stauch tea bagger, and financial conservative.
Bruce, you do realize this is 2011 and not 2001? If having singular access to the whitehouse is meaningful? Then the union leaders, Rev. Wrights, and the several other radicals multiple visits must be really important.
Robert Waldmann,
You’re awfully quiet about Reid’s deficit reduction plan.
Do you intend to critique Reid’s plan or are you giving him a free pass?
Comment on the fact that any deficit “plan”, which will never be enacted, linked to the debt ceiling is extortion.
Putting up legislation in the House that is only acceptable to the House majority party members is not a serious effort to legislate. Boehner and his cronies have been persistently dogmatic in their approach to any effort on the part of the other party, whether the President or the Democratic leadership in the Senate, to suggest a lefisaltive structure that would satisfy enough members of both parties. The result is what we are witnessing in the Congress. What else could the President do in the face of such intransigence on the part of the Republican zealots? A government of diverse representatives (though not sufficiently diverse to be truly democratic) requires compromise. What indication of compromise have the Republicans demonstrated?
Jack asks: “What indication of compromise have the Republicans demonstrated? ” Boehner’s acceptance of a “balanced” plan last Friday. What evidence do we have of democratic intransigence? Obama’s attempt to raise the revenues goals after getting clobbered by his party in the same “balanced” plan.
Jack, if you did not spout dogmatic talking points you’s have nothing to add to this blog.
That’s sad really. You appear to be passionate, but can’t seem to be able to see past the dogma. Of course, ILSM is the poster child.
ILSM, please look beyond the dogma to understand of what compromise might actually consist. It’s finding the middle ground on the issues that can be pursued and not endlessly following dead end discussions, revenue/tax increases.
It would appear that Robert has lost his voice. It must only work when attacking Republicans.
Robert is apparently giving a free pass to Reid.
CoRev
You’re addressing a mirror and sadly you seem not to recognize the face that is being reflected back at you. In the final analysis nearly all the commentary on this blog is political rhetoric woound around a hub of personal social ideals. Some who comment here would have us all believe that the mountain of data that they may reproduce is the equivalent of factual validation. They don’t recognize that the data has to be first reliable and then has to be operationally connected to the issue being discussed. Your “truths” are no more valid to those of us that disagree with your vision of how it is that our social economic system should work. You disregard the ideals of others and insist that the “facts” as you understand them are proof that those ideals have no validity. Ideals need no validation beyond their value in promoting a way of life. This is a progressive blog focused on economic issues and their social consequences. Your disregard for the values of others is the weakest link in the chain of evidence that you try to present in an insistant manner. Much of what you have to say is therefore ignored or out right rejected by the majority of the readers here.
MG, careful, or he’ll stop reading your comments, too.
Jack,
Obviously, you work in the Psycology profession! Only someone with this background can weave a web of manipulation all with the sole purpose of turning “facts” into opinion.
“Facts” cannot be “Opinion”. If Corev has “Facts,” that threaten your Ideals, then is it not your responsibility to provide “Facts” to support the “Validity” of your Ideals? Otherwise…it is just opinion!
I see this comment as “Projection”
Darren
What you know would at best fill a thimble. i expressed my own ideas so the concept of projection has no application to the thoughts expressed. Facts may be just that, but data is a collection of measured phenomenon which may be factual but may have little to do with the concepts that are said to be supported by that data. There are subtle differences which you have no means to understand. Did you fail basic research techniques: 101? Did you even audit the classes?
And very soon you two will be talking only to one another. An intelligent conversation requires at least two receptive minds. Otherwise it is just a monologue of questionable value.
Jack,
Screw you.
Uh-Huh….something about the Pot calling the Kettle Black?
MG
Is that a quote from the Tea Pot play book? “When all else fails stick out your tongue and razz your protagonist.”
If either you or CoRev would ever get past your dogmatic adherence to right wing dogma there might be a beginning for dialogue. I had thought that you actually made steps in that direction and it was only CoRev that was impossible to address. Recall that the focus and intention of the AB site is to present and discuss “slightly left of center economic” issues. CoRev seems only to want to continuously challenge the value of such a discussion and would prefer to bludgeon the other discussants with trivia and half truths. You, on the other hand, seem to generally appreciate the need for balance, but then suddenly you’re in a corner and striking out. Too bad.
Jack,
I’ll make it simple for you. Your outright lies and personal accusations are pure bullshit.
I’m an independent voter and make no apology for that.
I took a two month break from posting at Angry Bear but monitored the quality of main posts and comment threads. There are background reasons why I did that which are none of your business but the blog owner is well aware of some observations that I made.
I don’t respond to most of your posts because I don’t believe your repeated themes add much to the value and standing of Angry Bear. I believe that your childish personal attacks have, in part, led to declining readership and participation at Angry Bear. And, yes, I have watched your ugly over the top attacks on CoRev and other participants. Basically, you have been an ass.
I could care less what political ideology and personal beliefs anyone holds. I am interested in facts, analysis, and discussions that advance one’s thinking.
I have worked with Dan since before he assumed ownership of Angry Bear, identifying possible ways to improve the quality of main posts, thread commentary, and expansion of Angry Bear’s vision and areas of analysis. What has become apparent is that AB has drifted from its previous main focus on economics, which in turn drew a different participation audience. Hopefully, Dan will be successful in getting the blog back on track with a balanced approach to economics and some other issues.
What Dan doesn’t need are participants like you who thrive on personal attacks. That is a problem that has popped up on Angry Bear a few times. Fortunately, most of those clowns have gone to other blogs or quit blogging altogether.
I don’t need your approval to participant at Angry Bear. I was a participant here years before you showed up.
Angry Bear, unlike many other blogs, is not a glee club for a single political ideology or set of personal beliefs. It’s not a stupid echo chamber, thankfully. Once that sinks in with you, as hardheaded as you are, your general commentary might be better. Obviously, the best measure of that would be for you to stop launching personal attacks on a blog that is damn sure not yours.
You have demonstrated some reasonable intelligence at times, but you lack personal character and honor.
“There are background reasons why I did that which are none of your business…”
Note that I didn’t ask. Nor did I make note of your absence. When it comes to personal attacks I’ll leave it to Dan to determine who it is that is tossing them about and who it is that is generally trying to bury the conversation under an avalanche of often irrelevant data. I’d suggest that you re-read both of our last two comments,k above, and decide who it is that is casting insults. And those two comments are preceded by this “bon mot”,
MG
Jack,
Screw you.
Today, 11:55:40 AM
“It’s not a stupid echo chamber, thankfully.”
No it’s not, but I note the infrequency of some other participants and wonder whether the repetitious stridency of the right wing faction here may have something to do with that. But keep the cards and letters coming in. You’ve just raised the tone of the conversation to a new low.
– Flag – Like
Jack – “When it comes to personal attacks I’ll leave it to Dan to determine who it is that is tossing them about and who it is that is generally trying to bury the conversation under an avalanche of often irrelevant data. I’d suggest that you re-read both of our last two comments,k above, and decide who it is that is casting insults.”
Dan is fully capable of doing just that. Since you want play the crybaby role, let’s review what actually occurred. CoRev and I were not attempting to engage you in conversation.
CoRev responded to a general readership comment that I made. You decided to be an ass and attack both of us.
MG – Yesterday, 2:10:12 PM: “It would appear that Robert has lost his voice. It must only work when attacking Republicans. Robert is apparently giving a free pass to Reid.”
CoRev – Yesterday, 4:30:29 PM: “MG, careful, or he’ll stop reading your comments, too.”
Jack – Yesterday, 9:16:06 PM: “And very soon you two will be talking only to one another. An intelligent conversation requires at least two receptive minds. Otherwise it is just a monologue of questionable value.”
MG – Today, 11:55:40 AM: “Jack, Screw you.”
—–
You launched another one of your many personal attacks on other participants on Dan’s blog.
Same old story.
Jack – Yesterday, 9:16:06 PM: “And very soon you two will be talking only to one another. An intelligent conversation requires at least two receptive minds. Otherwise it is just a monologue of questionable value.”
That’s the remark that’s got you so up tight? The three of you, including Sammy and CoRev, have been tossing about personal attacks and insults that would make the cited comment seem nearly to be a compliment. You do really have a distorted view of the conversation. And “Screw you” is the best that you can come up with to challenge anything that I’ve said? I must have hit a nerve in highlighting the vacuous nature of so many of the right wing’s commentary on this blog. In that case I must be on the right track. Oops! I mean the correct path.
I’m casting aspertions? On who and when. The worst that you have been able to cite is a mild reference to being receptive to other points of view. Here you repeat yourself in questioning both character and honor (which, by the way, I could care less about such an opinion on a blog.)
First: “You have demonstrated some reasonable intelligence at times, but you lack personal character and honor.”
Yesterday, 7:17:56 PM
And again: “You lack personal character and honor.” Today, 2:51:11 AM
“It’s obvious why some participants avoid responding to your comments. There is no point. You’re not really interested in having a conversation.”
I’ll repeat here my reply to CoRev recently when he tried to make the same bogus observation. “CoRev, You’re addressing a mirror and sadly you seem not to recognize the face that is being reflected back at you. In the final analysis nearly all the commentary on this blog is political rhetoric woound around a hub of personal social ideals.”
We could continue like this ad infinitum, but I don’t think that would serve more than an entertainment value. You, CoRev and Sammy have been persistent in attacking anyone who raises an objection or criticism of your commentary which is often inaccurate or little more than Republican and/or Tea Party rhetoric. Too bad that you don’t like such criticism of your point of view and the way in which you sometimes express it.
Jack,
Your personal attacks on old and new participants on Dan’s blog are all over the place.
You can’t bullshit your way out of the truth.
It’s obvious why some participants avoid responding to your comments. There is no point. You’re not really interested in having a conversation. Your preference is to force a confrontation or simply launch personal attacks.
You lack personal character and honor.
Is this Delete and Re-post and attempt at having the last word? The first time is time stamped Today, 2:51:11 AM. Curiouser and curiouser.