I missed the point entirely? That’s rich!

Listen, why don’t you either sit home on Election Day or vote for Hillary since your point all along has been that the President’s views on taxes are largely irrelevant.

Apparently when Presidential candidates campaign on taxes, it’s just to fool gullible people like me into thinking they have any power or influence in that regard. /sarc.

See… I can do it too…
Buh Bye!
Romeo13 on October 7, 2007 at 12:00 PM

..monkey see monkey do…

..buh bye Romeo13 butt monkey…

Buy Danish on October 7, 2007 at 11:49 AM

Your assnine assertions and childish foolish arguements once again show your lack of intelligence by missing the point entirely…

See… I can do it too…

Buh Bye!

Please. Spare me the sanctimonious outrage.

This discussion began here:

Ok, let’s judge him by his actions. He also lowered taxes, created a surplus and has received endosements in the business world including by Forbes. Don’t just judge him by his negative aspects – look at the full picture.

Before being a tax-cutting Republican idol, Reagan was a pro-choice, high tax, union leader in Hollywood. His past actions hadn’t met up with the excellent speeches he’d give later on.

amerpundit on October 6, 2007 at 5:36 PM

You responded:

Problem is that he is not running for Congress… you know.. the guys who make TAX POLICY!!!

Romeo13 on October 6, 2007 at 5:54 PM

That was a false (and dare I say asinine premise) which implies that it makes absolutely no difference what a candidate, or President’s position on taxes is.

My response (emphasis mine):

Romeo13,

First of all, do YOU understand what the President can do as the Executive? You have placed tax policy entirely into the lap of Congress…

That does not say that or imply Congress has no role, and it would be perfectly idiotic for me to claim otherwise.

Why are you arguing with me and babbling about the Constitution over something I never said and never would say?

Kennedy Tax Cuts, Bush Tax Cuts, and Reagan Tax Cuts. Why do you think they are called that? Hint: Kennedy does not refer to Ted.

Do try to answer that very simple question without playing childish games.

Buy Danish on October 7, 2007 at 10:00 AM

Sigh… Just because you continue to misname somthing, or the MSM does, it does NOT make it fact.

Those CONGRESSES lowered those taxes. Presidents may SUGGEST, they may ask, they may even negotiate as a PARTY leader, but they cannot MAKE tax policy.

Basic seperation of powers.

Just like Iraq is NOT Bush’s war. To call it that is UNTRUE as the President CANNOT declare war (except as Congress has given away their Constitutional Power under the War Powers Act.. ie for 90 days). To call it that abrogates the responsibility of Congress in all of this… which is exactly what the Press, and Congress, wants…

And speaking of childish games… I’m very tired of your personal aspersions on my character and intelligence… I believe I’ve been nothing but civil, and argueing FACT, not once have I called you an idiot, or childish, or a fool.

But I guess expecting the same respect from you is too much to ask…

Done…

One final point. Lincoln said that a house divided against itself cannot stand. The “people’s house” is something entirely different and refers to the House of Representatives.

It does not surprise me that the MB4 thinks that this disgusting analogy of yours is on a level with Mark Twain:

Giuliani cleaned up the sh*t-hole. But that doesn’t mean that we want to promote a latrine attendant to house steward.

Kennedy Tax Cuts, Bush Tax Cuts, and Reagan Tax Cuts. Why do you think they are called that? Hint: Kennedy does not refer to Ted.

Do try to answer that very simple question without playing childish games.

Just because you want to interpret pretty much anything I say that way does not make it so. BTW, I do however reserve the right to use that argument any time I want. See the U.S. Constitution. It is no more outlawed than saying someone wants to cut and run or surrender or wants us to lose.

BTW, the ignore the tap tap yappy dog light is now on.

MB4 on October 7, 2007 at 2:27 AM

LOL… amazing how much Danish seems to know about the Constitution….. not…

When someone resorts to personal attacks in a debate, it means their position is very weak, and cannot stand up to the facts…

But don’t worry… thats just coming from another “fool”.

By that logic we should nominate Duncan Hunter. California has way more electoral votes than New York.

jaime

Yeah Duncan Hunter would really be a threat to Hillary in California. The yahoo wing of the GOP is losing it.

Told you the Cubs suck

Buy Danish Pinocchio on October 7, 2007 at 1:48 AM

Before you said that I actually used the word, now you have changed it to the argument. You are like Mike Nifong.

BTW, I forgot to say Simon says, so now Simon says the ignore the tap tap yappy dog light is now on.

Giuliani cleaned up the sh*t-hole. But that doesn’t mean that we want to promote a latrine attendant to house steward.

jaime on October 7, 2007 at 1:24 AM

That is going into my ever expanding list of quotes! Right after Mark Twain! I will be sure to credit you though just as I do Mark and Niccolo and all the others for their gems.

I have repeatedly linked directly to the thread where you used a chicken hawk argument. Lo and behold you just did it to someone else!

Buy Danish Pinocchio on October 7, 2007 at 1:48 AM

Just because you want to interpret pretty much anything I say that way does not make it so. BTW, I do however reserve the right to use that argument any time I want. See the U.S. Constitution. It is no more outlawed than saying someone wants to cut and run or surrender or wants us to lose.

BTW, the ignore the tap tap yappy dog light is now on.

She has foreign poll-I-see.

(Guiliani can lift that line and use it to give her a wedgie at will.)

Sure, you don’t disdain Rush, you just ridicule him and use snarky Chicken Hawk arguments against him

Buy Danish on October 6, 2007 at 11:19 PM

Your making things up is getting really old and very tiresome.

MB4 on October 7, 2007 at 1:14 AM

Your pants are on fire MB4. I have repeatedly linked directly to the thread where you used a chicken hawk argument. Lo and behold you just did it to someone else!

What am I missing?

Buy Danish on October 7, 2007 at 1:03 AM

An awful lot.

MB4 on October 7, 2007 at 1:15 AM

I didn’t ask you MB4. Believe me, I am not stupid enough to ask your opinion on anything.

Jaime on October 7, 2007 at 1:24 AM

LOL. Believe me, your comparison of Rudy Guiliani to a downstairs maid did not make me think of Lincoln. It is a perfectly idiotic “metaphor” so don’t flatter yourself.

Buy Danish on October 6, 2007 at 11:33 PM

So I sound pompous, like I fancy myself Lord of the Manor.

He cleaned up the drawing room. But that doesn’t mean we want to promote a downstairs maid to house steward.
jaime on October 6, 2007 at 7:53 PM

I guess if you twist my words like a liberal pundit I might.

Lincoln used the metaphor of the U.S. as a house, and it is apt. Government is the servant of the people, government officials work for the people, the President lives in the peoples’ house, etc. Of course, Giuliani doesn’t view it that way, and I can see why you support him.

I might have used the metaphor:

Giuliani cleaned up the sh*t-hole. But that doesn’t mean that we want to promote a latrine attendant to house steward.

But of course I didn’t use that metaphor because I don’t want to offend the good people of New York. And because New York is a great city.

As always, the debate is fun. A Giuliani thread without Buy Danish would be like Lost In Space without Dr. Smith. Sure, mission accomplished but we’d miss out on all the whining.

What am I missing?

Buy Danish on October 7, 2007 at 1:03 AM

An awful lot.

Sure, you don’t disdain Rush, you just ridicule him and use snarky Chicken Hawk arguments against him

Buy Danish on October 6, 2007 at 11:19 PM

Your making things up is getting really old and very tiresome.

JM Hanes on October 7, 2007 at 12:11 AM

Social conservatives are looking to the Federal Courts to undo decades of abominable rulings, but other than that I’m a bit stymied as to how they want the Federal Government to “mandate social norms”.

There are really only two issues that I can think of – abortion and gay marriage. If the courts overturn Roe v. Wade it goes back to the States. We could get a constitutional amendment on Gay marriage but that requires a majority of the states to approve it.

What am I missing?

Social conservatives are looking to the federal government to mandate social norms. As far as I’m concerned, they look a whole lot more like Democrats than Giuliani does.

JM Hanes on October 7, 2007 at 12:11 AM

Some do, but there’s plenty there for people who don’t think that way to dislike too.

“Rudy and his supporters ought to be clear about something in their own minds, as I think clarity will help them deal with social conservatives like myself”

Because it’s all about how they deal with you, right? You put the odds of a Giuliani sex scandal bimbo eruption at 60% and then complain about getting slammed as a social conservative? Give me a break. You pose a series of rhetorical “what if’s” which in sum ask what if Giuliani is deceiving us about his real positions on the issues and the policy commitments he has made. Since you haven’t actually pointed out anything of substance at all, this piece is the very essence of demagoguery.

“Social conservatives are part of the brake on the Democrats, as part of the conservative/Republican coalition.”

Social conservatives are looking to the federal government to mandate social norms. As far as I’m concerned, they look a whole lot more like Democrats than Giuliani does.

Buy Danish, maybe you’ll give a description of downstairs maids that will improve the metaphor. If not, what’s the point of your comment?

jaime on October 6, 2007 at 9:10 PM

The point of my comment was that you sounded pompous, as if you fancy yourself the Lord of the Manor.

But I tell you what:

Why don’t you tell us how Rudy Guiliani is like a downstairs maid since it was your metaphor to begin with.

And please don’t be too predictable and pull out a photo of him in drag.

MB4 on October 6, 2007 at 8:39 PM

You’re a regular Bartlett’s Quotations! Anyone can pull quotes out of a hat, which is a nice crutch when you aren’t proficient at original thinking or persuasive writing skills.

Sure, you don’t disdain Rush, you just ridicule him and use snarky Chicken Hawk arguments against him. Rush has probably done more to bring conservative thinking into the mainstream, and to analyze and define liberalism than anyone – which must drive you crazy.

There may be more pointy headed intellectuals out there like William F. Buckley, but Rush is by far the most ground-breaking and has the broadest reach. He, more than anyone, broke through the dam of liberal media control, and for that accomplishment alone he has achieved greatness.

It is one thing to say that you disagree with Rush on one point or another (and indeed I include myself in that category) but the disrespectful tone of you criticism betrays a deeper loathing of conservative principles and thought.

By the way, I just left you a message here

Romeo13 on October 6, 2007 at 8:29 PM

Are you setting yourself up as a Constitutional scholar? I certainly make no claims in that regard, but I don’t think you understand what even the average 8th grader knows – that the President sets an agenda and has a budget and policies which he hopes that Congress will enact.

Any idiot knows that taxes are levied by Congress, but for you to deny the role of the President in the process is mind boggling.