Woman at GOP Rally, “I was not calling Ryan out”

posted at 8:31 am on October 6, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

To hear the Obama campaign tell the story, VP candidate Paul Ryan got a real earful at one of his own events this past week. An Iowa woman chimed in with a question for the candidate which she felt deserved an answer.

At the town hall event on Tuesday, [Linda] Morrison cited a contentious exchange between Ryan and Fox News anchor Chris Wallace on Sunday, in which Ryan said it would take too long to explain the details of his tax plan. She asked the vice presidential candidate why he wasn’t more specific, and why he “didn’t answer his question about what are your plans.”


That was too good of an opportunity to pass up for Team Obama, who immediately took to the wires with a snark filled attack. Paul Ryan “can’t attend his own campaign rallies without being called out for failing to provide specifics about what Mitt Romney would do if elected.” Or so went the meme of the day. Unfortunately for Obama, Ms. Morrison not only follows the news, but wasn’t shy about penning a letter to the editor straightening out the events of the day.

I am the woman in the Green Bay Packer jacket at Rep. Paul Ryan’s rally in Clinton who asked him the question about specific plans to fix our economy. Needless to say, I was quite shocked to learn the Obama campaign seized my question, putting out the statement “Even Ryan can’t attend his own rally without being called out.”

I was not calling Ryan out. I had the opportunity to ask a direct question to Paul Ryan and what I got was a complete direct answer with no spin…

Today I am outraged that my question is being misrepresented and used as a political tool against the Romney/Ryan campaign by both media and the Obama camp. The question I asked is what we the citizens want to know: How is the Romney/Ryan plan going to tackle this economy? Paul Ryan answered it with precise clarity.

The author makes it clear that she felt her question was pertinent and she was satisfied with the response. In closing, she poses pretty much the same question to President Obama. What will he do to address the country’s fiscal woes if given another four years? As of this posting, no answer has been forthcoming from the White House.

Wow… that lady’s a real radical, isn’t she? Must be one of those crazy Tea Party women.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

mr. elitist, did you want to debate the other fact that I brought up ..namely that tax revenues, as a percentage of GDP, have not fluctated in the last 70 years regardless of tax rates?

DebraChicago on October 6, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Mr. elitist, here are a few 1%’rs to target, oh wait, we can’t, they’re the legislators LMAO go figure …

Here are some members of the Top 1% who are or should be targets:

Barack Obama: (supports OWS)
Annual POTUS salary (not total income): $400,000
Net worth in 2010: $10.5 million

The 25 richest members of Congress (in Roll Call’s 2009 annual survey that gives only their estimated net worth. Under federal law, members of Congress must disclose their personal investments and liabilities, but only in broad categories, thereby shielding the exact value of any asset or debt):

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass): $188.37 million
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Ca): $160.05 million
Rep. Jane Harman (D-Ca): $152.62 million
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va): $81.50 million
Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas): $73.75 million
Sen. Mark Warner (D- W.Va): $70.19 million
Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo): $56.49 million
Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla): 55.47 million
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ): $49.70 million
Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Ca): $46.07 million
Sen. Alan Grayson (D-Fla): $31.41 million
Rep. Harry Teague (D-NM): $25.52 million
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca): $21.74 million (supports OWS)
Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NY): $19.90 million
Sen. James Riche (R-Idaho) : $19.69 million
Rep. Gary Miller (R-Ca): $19.37 million
Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-Tx): $18.41 million
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn): $18.21 million
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo): $15.73 million
Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY): $14.90 million
Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine): $12.52 million
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn): $12.12 million
Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont): $10.90 million
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz): $10.52 million
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa): $10.45 million

DebraChicago on October 6, 2012 at 12:43 PM

more targets..those lousy one percenters…

Non-elected political figures:

Louis Farrakhan (leader of Nation of Islam): $3 million
Ralph Nader: $4.2 million
Chelsea Clinton: $5 million
Al Sharpton: $5 million
Joy Behar: $8 million
Ann Coulter: $8.5 million
Rev. Jesse Jackson: $10 million (supports OWS)
Henry Kissinger: $10 million
Eric Holder (U.S. attorney general): $11.5 million
Sarah Palin: $12 million (networth); $1 million (annual salary)
Hillary Clinton: $21.5 million
Arianna Huffington: $35 million (Forbes calls her the 2nd most influential liberal in the media)
John Edwards: $55.5 million
Al Gore: $100 million (supports OWS)
Mitt Romney: $250 million

DebraChicago on October 6, 2012 at 12:44 PM

oh and mr. idon’tknowchit elitist, you DO acknowledge that tax rates have LITTLE bearing on tax revenues as a percentage of GDP, as history cleary shows they’ve remained static at 18-20% of GDP for the last 70 years or so..right? *winks

DebraChicago on October 6, 2012 at 12:19 PM

18-20% is a significant fluctuation in this context — $300 billion. And — cause and effect are not exact, here, but tax receipts went from 19% of GDP before Reagan to a low of 17.3% before the ’87 tax reform, fell during the Bush years (recession) and kicked back up to 20.6 %by 2000, after the clinton years. During Bush, they dropped significantly, to as low as 16.1% in 2004.

Break out individual rates and the fluctuation is more significant. From 9.4% in ’81, to 7.9% in 86 to 10.2% in 2000, to 8.4% in 2007.

So, the effects are may be “little,” but they’re far from negligible.

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 12:44 PM

let’s not forget these gasbag elitists while we’re at it…from one elitist to another n all *grins

The Media:

Rachael Maddow: $12.5 million
Matt Drudge: $15 million
Brian Williams: $30 million (networth); $13 million (annual salary)
Keith Olbermann: $35 million (networth); $10 million (annual salary)
Sean Hannity: $35 million
Diane Sawyer: $40 million (networth); $12 million (annual salary)
Katie Couric: $55 million (networth); $15 million (annual salary)
Jon Stewart: $80 million (networth); $15 million (annual salary)
Glenn Beck: $85 million
Anderson Cooper: $100 million (networth); $11 million (annual salary)
Barbara Walters: $150 million
Rush Limbaugh: $300 million (networth); $40 million (annual salary).
Oprah Winfrey: $2.7 Billion

Celebrities who’ve spoken out in support of Occupy Wall Street (ain’t hypocrisy and stupidity grand?):
Yoko Ono: $500 million
Russell Simmons: $325 million
Sean Penn: $150 million
Rosie O’Donnell: $100 million
Roseanne Barr: $80 million
Deepak Chopra: $80 million
Kanye West: $70 million
Alec Baldwin: $65 million
Russell Brand (networth: 15 million; combined networth with wife, singer Katy Perry: $63 million)
Susan Sarandon: $50 million
Tim Robbins: $50 million
Michael Moore: $50 million
Danny Glover: $15 million
Talib Kweli: $14 million
Mark Ruffalo: $10 million

DebraChicago on October 6, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Although, I do have a nice Mansion in Georgetown picked out for my commune if the revolution comes. ;)

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 12:27 PM

so did marie antoinette, she had versailles :)…

jimver on October 6, 2012 at 12:46 PM

it’s not a “significant fluctuation in this context” it’s a fact junior ; )

DebraChicago on October 6, 2012 at 12:47 PM

hahaha, georgetown …hahaha, got your ammo ready too or some lackey gonna cover your asz for ya elitist?

If Odumbo is re-elected it’s not a matter of “if”

DebraChicago on October 6, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Let me see if I can post a link here..

DebraChicago on October 6, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Even if the “rich” gets defined down to the top 10% of filers — whose average annual household income is $114,000 — the level of revenue from even a 100% tax would still not close the budget gap…

Say we take it up to the top 10%, or everyone with income over $114,000, including joint filers. That’s five times Mr. Obama’s 2% promise. The IRS data are broken down at $100,000, yet taxing all income above that level throws up only $3.4 trillion

The budge deficit is $1 trillion.

A 3-percentage point tax increase (that doesn’t even affect dividends or capital gains) when tax rates are at historically low levels hardly qualifies as “soaking the rich,” I think.

mr. elitist

Call me “Urb”

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 12:52 PM

hmmm, don’t think that worked ; )

Let me try again.

From the Atlantic…Raising Tax Revenue isn’t impossible, it’s easy!

DebraChicago on October 6, 2012 at 12:53 PM

You’re crazy. Many of the members of congress that voted in favor of the bill didn’t not understand many of the major aspects of this bill.

Also, the bill that was passed had NOT been drafted 12 months prior. It required significant effort to keep up with what was being put into the bill. This effort, and questions regarding the bill, is what caused Nancy Pelosi to utter her famously stupid remarks. Sadly, it was far too true for many members of congress – they didn’t know what was in it until after it was passed. Actually, far too many still don’t fully understand the mechanisms that will be triggered when this law is implemented.

blink on October 6, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Again, give me one significant aspect of the bill that was unknown before it passed.

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 12:54 PM

hmmm, don’t think that worked ; )

Let me try again.

From the Atlantic…Raising Tax Revenue isn’t impossible, it’s easy!

DebraChicago on October 6, 2012 at 12:53 PM

And….?

it’s not a “significant fluctuation in this context” it’s a fact junior ; )

DebraChicago on October 6, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Yes, it is a fact that the 2% of GDP fluctuation is significant in terms of budgeting, and would, in fact, reduce or increase the current deficit by about a third.

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 12:56 PM

That’s top 10 Mr. elitist, not top 1% as you postulated…nice cherry picking ; )

If you took all the income of people over $200,000 (top 1%), it would yield about $1.89 trillion, enough revenue to cover the 2012 bill for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security—but not the same bill in 2016, as the costs of those entitlements are expected to grow rapidly. The rich, in short, aren’t nearly rich enough to finance Mr. Obama’s entitlement state ambitions—even before his health-care plan kicks in.

DebraChicago on October 6, 2012 at 12:58 PM

I’ll show you mine if you show me yours.

Plans that is……Get your mind out of the gutter.

Herb on October 6, 2012 at 1:00 PM

mr. elitist, could you tell us why mr. obama totally ignored his debt commission recommendations? I mean, I get the DEM mantra, tax and spend, tax and spend, blah,blah,blah

What I found fascinating is Holder came out this week with a 400M fraud case, medicaid, medicare I believe..so I gather that’s to show how Obama’s 716B cut to medicare is going to be paid for by catching such “waste, fraud and abuse” eh? *winks and laughs..convenient timing to say the least..I say, MUCH too LITTLE, MUCH too late. Now IF they would ACTUALLY cut out all the waste, fraud and abuse in govt programs, we may have a prayer. Can you say gaming the food stamp program, can you say some morons with 32 “free Obama phones” the list is endless and disgusting!

DebraChicago on October 6, 2012 at 1:01 PM

cmon mr. elitist are you actually postulating that Congress KNEW what was in the bill? Even the hag Pelosi cackled and said..we have to pass the bill to know what’s in it..the really scary part in the hundreds of times the HHS is granted power to make decisions, that still weren’t even written yet. Ya know, the hag sebelius who was out campaigning against the Hatch Act rules. She just laid low for a few weeks and is right back at it again, pathetic.

DebraChicago on October 6, 2012 at 1:04 PM

“When you read the law, you see that in nearly every section, the word ‘secretary’ is mentioned. The secretary decides or ‘provides her discretion.’ The law will give her enormous power to make decisions about how companies will structure their business,” Roy said.
Could Stifle CriticismIn addition to holding authority over an annual budget of more than one trillion dollars, Sebelius has the power to exempt companies from various requirements of the health care overhaul, says Roy.”
“There are hundreds of examples of similar provisions in the law. If there is no repeal, there will still be plenty to fight over. HHS currently is running a budget of a trillion dollars, and it now controls a major portion of our economy. So I see the secretary position getting even more politicized,” said Roy.
Roy says the power to grant these waivers provides many opportunities for corruption and could prevent businesses from publicly criticizing the law because of the possibility of reprisals.
More to Come
This is just the beginning of the changes to come, says Devon Herrick, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas, Texas.
“The [health care overhaul law] has 1,075 instances in the bill of ‘the Secretary shall’ and other forms of delegation of power. Besides the waivers, we’ve just seen an example where the Secretary changed her interpretation of the law when it became evident that insurers would no longer sell child-only policies,” said Herrick.
Herrick says the ability to “exercise discretion” in whether HHS will enforce the minimum medical loss ratios, such as the department’s decision to grant McDonald’s a waiver from certain regulations, gives bureaucrats free rein to engage in abusive government practices.
“Had it not received the waiver, McDonald’s would have dropped its health plan. When the employer mandate takes effect in 2014, McDonald’s will drop its health plan and merely pay the $2,000 penalty,” Herrick said. “There is a tradeoff between labor and capital. If labor becomes more expensive, firms will substitute capital.”
Pushing out Private Plans
Herrick notes Sebelius’ waivers are merely a way of “disguising the consequences” of Obama’s law, which will necessarily drive firms that hire a disproportionate number of moderate-income workers to drop their health plans and push their workers into state health care exchanges.
“Despite the president’s promises that you can keep your plan if you like it, I suspect the architects of the PPACA knew few plans would retain grandfathered status a decade after passage,” said Herrick.”

DebraChicago on October 6, 2012 at 1:06 PM

“The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) has concluded that Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius violated the Hatch Act by engaging in political activity during an official appearance at the Human Rights Campaign’s gala in the battleground state of North Carolina this past February. While delivering the keynote address in her official capacity, Secretary Sebelius endorsed the lieutenant governor of North Carolina in his campaign for governor and strongly advocated the reelection of President Obama, stating:

One of the imperatives is to make sure that we not only come together here in Charlotte to present the nomination to the president, but we make sure that in November he continues to be president for another four years . . . . It’s hugely important to make sure that we reelect the president and elect a Democratic governor here in North Carolina.”

DebraChicago on October 6, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Again, give me one significant aspect of the bill that was unknown before it passed.

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 12:54 PM

So, you’re saying that Pelosi stating that ‘you had to pass it to know what was in it’ was a blatant lie… that’s a new one. Being from CA, I figure everything she spews is a lie– just never expected a Lib to call her out on the lying; like you have do so on this thread.

Bless your little heart.

socalcon on October 6, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Though I think Wassaman supplanted Sebelious in the doghouse after her idiotic comments about Israel..

“Tuesday, a piece in The Washington Examiner quoting Democratic National Committee Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) claiming that she was told by the Israeli Ambassador to the United States that he believed the GOP was “dangerous for Israel” sparked controversy. Rep. Wasserman Schultz has since denied ever saying that quote, but the audio of that comment has since surfaced and exposed Wasserman Schultz’s false denials.

RELATED: Israeli Ambassador ‘Categorically’ Denies Wasserman Schultz’s Claim He Said GOP Was ‘Dangerous For Israel’

So many scummy liars, so little time.

MITT WON’T QUIT, GO MITT GO

DebraChicago on October 6, 2012 at 1:11 PM

That’s top 10 Mr. elitist, not top 1% as you postulated…nice cherry picking ; )

This is what the article you quoted said: “Even if the “rich” gets defined down to the top 10% of filers”

If you took all the income of people over $200,000 (top 1%), it would yield about $1.89 trillion, enough revenue to cover the 2012 bill for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security—but not the same bill in 2016, as the costs of those entitlements are expected to grow rapidly. The rich, in short, aren’t nearly rich enough to finance Mr. Obama’s entitlement state ambitions—even before his health-care plan kicks in.

DebraChicago on October 6, 2012 at 12:58 PM

The argument had started as a discussion of the deficit. I never suggested that the income of the 1% would cover the entitlement budget.

blink on October 6, 2012 at 12:58 PM

None of those were last-minute adds.

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 1:12 PM

I’ll never forget it…Just when I thought the miracle election of Scott Brown in Teddy’s old stomping grounds would put the kibosh on that train-wreck, they “deemed it as passed” tried some arcane manuevers and passed it against the will of the people on Christmas Eve after the CBC beclowned themselves and said someone spat on them and blah,blah,blah as they incited the folks walking in to vote.

GOD I miss Andrew Breitbart ; (

DebraChicago on October 6, 2012 at 1:13 PM

That was to you blink, not sure how to copy your name ; ) I’m a rookie here.

DebraChicago on October 6, 2012 at 1:14 PM

Long time lurker, fairly new poster, got banned from the sewer Fox Nation ; ( hehehe, stepped on too many troll aszes LOL

DebraChicago on October 6, 2012 at 1:15 PM

NO, mr. elitist, YOUR argument was the TOP 1% would garner some ridiculous figure of 19.2 trillion, blah,blah,blah, I’m just calling bullchite on that ; )

DebraChicago on October 6, 2012 at 1:16 PM

BTW, even IF we took every dime, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say 1.89T, that woould cover ONE year, THEN what? You think they’ll stick around to let the gestapo..errr govt take every dime next year? SERIOUSLY? You think they got rich by being pushover doormats?

DebraChicago on October 6, 2012 at 1:18 PM

The fact that such a large number of waivers could be granted was “unknown” by key people in the debate. Please, please, please challenge me on this.

blink on October 6, 2012 at 1:09 PM

With the vast number of waivers, Nelson should have held out for a larger Cornhusker Kickback.

socalcon on October 6, 2012 at 1:18 PM

cmon mr. elitist do you actually think a 2700 page behemoth that allows the HHS secretary over 1047 “powers” as yet to be defined, that Congress hadn’t even read yet, that had not ONE single GOP vote, that was rammed through at midnite on Christmas Eve is THE solution? The GOP was physically locked out of the debate, that’s a fact.

DebraChicago on October 6, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Off-Topic, God Bless the USS Michael Murphy

DebraChicago on October 6, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Our 2009 Christmas present ; ) Remember these bribes, kickbacks, arm-twisting? I do…..
“With the bill hanging in the balance, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) won a provision exempting his state from paying the usual share of costs for new Medicaid patients. The deal, which critics have dubbed the “Cornhusker Kickback,” is expected to cost the federal government $100 million over 10 years.
Before a close vote last month, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) won an even larger break for her state — an estimated $300 million in extra federal spending, in a move now derisively called the “Louisiana Purchase.”
Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) made sure that certain insurance companies in his state are off the hook from a new $7 billion dollar tax.
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) got his kickback — a $100 million bonus for the University of Connecticut… to do with whatever they want.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) was “persuaded” to drop his concerns after Senator Reid offered his state a $10 billion grant for “community health centers”-money that could easily be funneled to facilities that perform abortions.
Three states — Pennsylvania, New York and Florida — all won protections for their Medicare Advantage beneficiaries at a time when the program is facing cuts nationwide.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) won a promise from Reid to support his plan to expand eligibility for health insurance.
The Senators from Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming will get the “Frontier Freebie” — they’ll see an increase in Medicare payments to hospitals and doctors, because “at least 50 percent of their counties are ‘frontier counties,’ defined as those having a population density less than six people per square mile.”
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), chairman of the Senate health committee, got a provision inserted to increase Medicare payments to certain “low-volume hospitals” in Grinnell, Keokuk and Spirit Lake, treating limited numbers of Medicare patients.
Even the Democrats themselves are starting to complain about this obvious “Cash for Cloture” bribing going on. When Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) couldn’t get past the reporters swarming Ben Nelson on her way to the cloture vote, she quipped, “I know I’m not as important as Senator Nelson. I didn’t get the money for my state. I was too stupid.”

DebraChicago on October 6, 2012 at 1:22 PM

heheh thanks Blink, I rather enjoy it myself ; ) Being from Chicago and surrounded by TOTAL IDIOT SHEEPLE, I have a little pent up rage *grins

DebraChicago on October 6, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Thanks for letting me play, gotta go make some chocolate chip cookies, cold in Chicago today!

Y’all have a wonderful day ; )

DebraChicago on October 6, 2012 at 1:25 PM

See ya, Debra. I will definitely be on the look-out to team up with you again!

blink on October 6, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Ok, lemme see if I have this right…I’ll look forward to it blink, take care.

DebraChicago on October 6, 2012 at 1:29 PM

See ya, Debra. I will definitely be on the look-out to team up with you again!

blink on October 6, 2012 at 1:27 PM

hmmm

DebraChicago on October 6, 2012 at 1:29 PM

LIVING WILL FORM

I, ____________, being of sound mind and body, do not wish to be kept alive indefinitely by artificial means. Under no circumstances should my fate be put in the hands of pinhead partisan politicians who couldn’t pass ninth-grade biology if their lives depended on it, or lawyers/doctors/hospitals interested in simply running up the bills.

If after a reasonable amount of time passes, and I fail to ask for: (Check appropriate items): a Martini ______, a Margarita ______, a Scotch and soda ______, a Bloody Mary______, a beer ______, a Gin and Tonic _______, a Glass of Chardonnay ______, a Steak ______, Lobster or crab legs ______, the TV remote control ______, a bowl of ice cream ______, the sports page______, Sex______, or Chocolate_______, it should be presumed that I won’t ever get any better. When such a determination is reached, I hereby instruct my appointed person and attending physicians to pull the plug, reel in the tubes, and call it a day. At this point, it is time to call the New Orleans Jazz Funeral Band to come and do their thing at my funeral, and ask all of my friends to raise their glasses to toast the good times we have had.

Signature:________________________Date:__________

P.S. I hear that in Ireland there is a Nursing Home with a Pub. The patients are happier, and they have a lot more visitors. Some of them don’t even need embalming when their time comes. If anyone knows the name of this happy place, PLEASE pass it on.

Amendment #1:
Should I become incapacitated as described above, DO NOT PULL THE PLUG until after I have voted against Barack Obama by absentee ballot in the November 2012 election.

Schadenfreude on October 6, 2012 at 1:29 PM

my dad was a lifer in the Navy, Anchors Away! ; ) All my brothers servred and both my son and daughter served. God Bless our fine Military.

DebraChicago on October 6, 2012 at 1:30 PM

See ya, Debra. I will definitely be on the look-out to team up with you again!

blink on October 6, 2012 at 1:27 PM

hahahaha

DebraChicago on October 6, 2012 at 1:31 PM

oops, sorry, that didn’t come out right, I was laughing at Schadenfreude’s last sentence.

DebraChicago on October 6, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Obama will invest in our future with a fair and balanced approach. BWAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!

Wigglesworth on October 6, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Again, give me one significant aspect of the bill that was unknown before it passed.

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 12:54 PM

What about the (literally) hundreds of occurrences of the phrase, “The Secretary [HHS--Sebellius] shall,” determine this or that matter, etc.

Odumbocare is “oozing” with language like that. Really less of a law than a carte blanche for Odumbo and his fascists to force their will upon the American people.

RedCrow on October 6, 2012 at 1:54 PM

To DebraChicago:

Regarding John Kerry, who is the original target for both the Flip-Flopper name, and the perjorative “Thurston Howell III,” both coined in Boston, possibly by Howie Carr a talk radio personality here, we like to say that Kerry gets a pass because he only married money “twice” he didn’t actually Work for it.

Fleuries on October 6, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Debra – I love your lists.

Don’t you wonder how the ladies on the View can sit and chat with Barbara Walters when she is a robber barron who has made her money off terrible media advertising for about 80 years for products that no one needs?

Fleuries on October 6, 2012 at 1:58 PM

new to this thread but I enjoyed it! Sad to say that I think Debra and Blink will get hired by Ed and what I just witnessed will not be repeated. hope the cookies come out Debra! thinking about wild turkey soup here tomorrow (global warming is a myth is west central Wis).

teejk on October 6, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Now if we could only get a clear answer on why security was lax, not upgraded and actually diminished in Libya prior to the assassination of our Ambassador there.

And a clear answer on Fast & Furious, Project Castaway, et. al.

Just little and easy things under the direct control of this Administration.

ajacksonian on October 6, 2012 at 2:36 PM

I’m often not very nice on here (it’s something that I need to work on…)
blink on October 6, 2012 at 2:31 PM

think you are fine…that’s the beauty of this site…ability to tell it as it is (keeping basic civility principles in mind). that exchange was great IMHO.

as an aside, had to visit my local county courthouse last week to enroll in a property tax credit…Halloween decorations everywhere and I had to ask whether they were allowed (lest they offend some body)…I got the same look as when I told my next door neighbor at the last election that I wasn’t required to show my driver’s license in order to vote. both were told that I was only in a mocking mode…but people tend to be hyper-sensitive lately…I guess that’s part of the left’s plan…

teejk on October 6, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Off-Topic, God Bless the USS Michael Murphy

DebraChicago on October 6, 2012 at 1:21 PM

DebraChicago:Thanks for the heads up,I’m sending it into tips,
and H/T to you!:)
==============================

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/uss_murphy_commissioned_into_active_C3gIIvdYeK6X4qx4p5b2sO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Michael_Murphy_%28DDG-112%29

http://www.facebook.com/USSMichaelMurphy/info

http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/ddg112/Pages/default.aspx#.UHCJ8q6rE2w

canopfor on October 6, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Off-Topic, God Bless the USS Michael Murphy

DebraChicago on October 6, 2012 at 1:21 PM

DebraChigaco:Excellent Info scoop,I sent you some linkys,
a few minutes ago!:)

canopfor on October 6, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Actually, there are 155 million people in the labor force. For back-of-the envelope purposes, let’s figure that that translates into 100 million households, given that many, if not most households have more than one wage earner, so the top 1 percent would be one million households.

Given an average net worth for the top 1 percent of $19.2 million, if you confiscated all the wealth of the very rich, you’d actually get $19 trillion, which would cover the deficits form many years.

Just thought you’d want to know, so you could say fewer dumb things.

506,000,000,000,000

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 11:11 AM

Mr. Elitist,
Your math skills are no better than your fearless leader’s. I am actually one of those top 1%’ers based on my yearly income (just barely). My contribution would be quite paltry, as I suspect many of the top 1%’ers would be. So why not just say you want to confiscate the total net worth of the the top .5%? That would do wonders for the economy. As you know, “the problem with Socialism is that pretty soon you run out of other people’s money.”

Taxes will NEVER, EVER solve our debt crisis, not make it manageable, not pay it off. The ONLY thing that will help will be to increase GDP with a robust economy. How do higher taxes on anyone make for a more robust economy, sport.

I know it’s hard for you liberals to understand anything more complex than A—>D in a direct line. But if you can think real hard, try this one: A. Lower taxes and keep more money in the private sector–>B. This will increase the number of people working–>C. This will increase tax revenue significantly–D. If Conservatives are in power, they will use the drastically increased revenue to pay down the debt.

The recession Reagan inherited from Carter was far worse than the one Obama inherited from Bush. The difference was that Reagan understood A–>B–>C–>D and the recession was over and the economy was robust within two years. Obama only understands A–>D, so the economy still sucks and people think this is a worse recession after enduring it for four years.

Just thought you would want to know, so you would say fewer dumb things–but I doubt it.

NOMOBO on October 6, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Vice President Scrumptious will has the maths.

mittens on October 6, 2012 at 8:24 PM

Someone pondered the awfulness that would be an Obama second term. Following are a few comments about that.

Spend more money. Golf. Spend more money. Go to Vegas. Spend more money. Appear on “The View.” Spend more money. Kowtow to Islamic terrorists. Spend more money.

Baerwulf on October 6, 2012 at 8:40 AM

You forgot “castrate national defense and set up the storm troopers to deal with dissidents.”

disa on October 6, 2012 at 9:34 AM

I’ll add:

– build minarets nationwide, starting with New York, Los Angeles, Detroit and Chicago.

– issue “no questions asked” passports “freeee” to a few nations most of us can speculate about would be peppered with these “you can now hack America without penalty” papers.

– amp up the billions he’s already sent to many more billions for those same nations, one of which names begin with “I” and end with “n”.

– announce that Havanna is now the vacation capital of the U.S. and require U.S. citizens to “visit” there once every year; there will be charges for their required visits, like your home.

Lourdes on October 7, 2012 at 12:43 AM

Halloween decorations everywhere and I had to ask whether they were allowed (lest they offend some body)…

teejk on October 6, 2012 at 3:36 PM

I heard that some schools have forbidden witch costumes, lest they offend wiccan practitioners.

blink on October 6, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Meanwhile, proper use of taxpayer money and of taxpayer-funded locations is “Piss Christ” BECAUSE it offends Christians.

Lourdes on October 7, 2012 at 12:46 AM

I would be curious to compare the source of your figures to the source of mine

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Really, you assign an income for %1of all Americans that is 3 trillion higher than the GNP, and you’re asking for sources??!!!??!??!????!??!!!

Using that OWS math: Well it’s at least 14.4 trillion, given that 1% earns 99% of the income!!

Axeman on October 7, 2012 at 11:47 AM

I guess UE is proof that being an elitist is one thing and being elite is another.

Axeman on October 7, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Call me “Urb”

urban elitist on October 6, 2012 at 12:52 PM

No, I will call you Idiot, because that is what you are.

While not all idiots are liberal, all liberals are idiots. Case in point, Urban Elitist…

Wolftech on October 8, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Comment pages: 1 2