CBS' Schieffer twice asserted McCain will try to convince voters Obama will raise taxes -- without noting the charge is false
SUMMARY: On two successive nights, Bob Schieffer asserted that Sen. John McCain will tell voters that Sen. Barack Obama is going to raise their taxes without noting that the charge misrepresents Obama's tax plan. In fact, Obama has proposed cutting taxes for low- and middle-income taxpayers and raising taxes only on single people earning more than $200,000 per year and families earning more than $250,000 per year.
On two successive nights, CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer asserted that Sen. John McCain will tell voters that Sen. Barack Obama is going to raise their taxes without noting that the charge -- which McCain has made repeatedly -- misrepresents Obama's tax plan. On the October 16 broadcast of the CBS Evening News, Schieffer said that McCain "wants to emphasize that Barack Obama is going to raise taxes and he's [McCain's] not. I mean, that's what he's going to have to argue from here on in if he has any chance." On the October 17 broadcast of the CBS Evening News, Schieffer said that McCain's "people believe now his chance is to convince voters that Obama is a big-spending liberal who's going to raise their taxes." On neither newscast did Schieffer note that Obama has, in fact, proposed cutting taxes for low- and middle-income taxpayers and raising taxes only on single people earning more than $200,000 per year and families earning more than $250,000 per year.
Indeed, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, the Tax Policy Center concluded that compared with McCain, "Obama would give larger tax cuts to low- and moderate-income households and pay some of the cost by raising taxes on high-income taxpayers." Even McCain's own chief economic policy adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, has reportedly said it is inaccurate to say that "Barack Obama raises taxes."
From the October 16 broadcast of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:
KATIE COURIC (anchor): How do you think each candidate did, Bob?
SCHIEFFER: I think McCain had a pretty good night. I think he made the points he wanted to make. He wants to emphasize that Barack Obama is going to raise taxes and he's not. I mean, that's what he's going to have to argue from here on in if he has any chance. As for getting in Barack Obama's face, Barack Obama is one cool customer. It was very interesting to watch him. Clearly, McCain was trying to rattle him. But if he did, it never showed.
COURIC: Well, Bob, we thought -- think you did a great job, so congratulations on that.
From the October 17 broadcast of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:
COURIC: Bob Schieffer is our chief Washington correspondent and anchor of Face the Nation. Bob, it's been quite a week for you. Meanwhile, with two and a half weeks left until the election, how do you see things shaping up?
SCHIEFFER: Well, I tell you, Katie, after seeing those reports and looking at where this race is right now, I think you can only come to one conclusion: It is going to be very hard for John McCain to win. The way most of the experts see it now, McCain has got to win all 18 states where he is the heavy favorite plus all of the eight states we now believe are tossups, including the ones we've been reporting on tonight. But that still won't get him to the 270 electoral votes he needs to win. To do that, he has also got to win two of the states that are now leaning to Obama -- say, Colorado and New Mexico.
I think his people believe now his chance is to convince voters that Obama is a big-spending liberal who's going to raise their taxes. I think you're going to hear that over and over. But with where this race seems to be right now, that is going to be a hard sell and a very steep hill to climb.
COURIC: All right. Bob Schieffer. Bob, thank you so much.
I admit Obama is a cool under fire. If it had been me listening to McCain's broken record talking *points* during the last debate, instead of just smiling and shaking my head at the idiot, I would probably have blown up (not in the terrorist way!) and yelled 'Prove it, senator! Where are your facts?!' And if McAin is going to keep bringing up ACORN and 'biggest fraud' or whatever, Obama should calmly pick up a piece of paper detailing what ACORN does and who is responsible for filtering out fake registrations.
OK, I'm still finding the talk about taxes pretty confusing. I just caught a bit on Fox News, with Maria Cardona, ex-Hillary Clinton campaign advisor, supposedly representing the Obama campaign.The host (I think Banderas) asked her about the 250k dividing line, and whether it applies to gross or net for a small business.
Cardona seemed confused by the question, but answered that it was on the gross. Does this make sense to anybody, that tax policy is going to be applied to the gross income of a small business? Wouldn't this be a completely new way of figuring taxes, ignoring expenses and the idea of taxable income that has always been the basis of determining tax brackets?
If anybody has some real concrete details on the reality of this, I'm open to having myself straightened out. I don't own a business, and don't make anywhere close to 250k, but I'm just fascinated by the bizarro media take on this topic.It just doesn't seem to make sense.
Maybe Carmona has simply become a Fox operative, or was commenting on things she doesn't understand.
This really needs clarification. People like Joe the Plumber are concerned. After 8 years of stability (being securely locked into a low tax bracket) he's so confident of the Dems economic competence that he's afraid an Obama presidency will mean a 600% increase in his income, and the punishment of higher taxes. Please help Joe and me.
Cardona WAS confused, not surprisingly. Taxes are applied to taxable income, hence the name taxable income.
Fail, Solon. See below, the chapter in which I explain things to you.
Colonel, you are not high, or drunk or off your rocker (okay you probably are in general :-0)). But you are quite right. Taxes are based on net income, definately not gross. I'm only familiiar with S corps and sole proprietor businesses though.
And as far as straightening you out, well, why would we want to. :-0)
Good golly Miss Molly! I always forget how few people know diddly about even basic taxes and finance. It was pretty obvious that Mr. Wurzelbacher has no clue, either. Worse than that is putting someone on national TV who doesn't know. Shame on Ms Cardona.
Pull up an IRS Schedule C tax form, free on the web, and you'll get an idea.
A business sells products and services. When paid, that money is called GROSS SALES or gross receipts. The business pays the cost of goods, and what's left is called GROSS PROFIT. Add or subtract other income and you have GROSS INCOME.
Now, DEDUCT wages, rent, utilities, communications (phones), benefits, advertising, training, vehicle expenses, even home office deduction and such to end up with NET PROFIT.
If you have over $250,000 in NET PROFIT, Obama's program will tax the AMOUNT OVER $250,000 3% higher than happens today.
I've had my own business(s) since I was 20, over 30 years ago. As you'll note above, I have been able to deduct many legitimate business expenses such as car, cell phone, internet connection, office system (eg computer), medical insurance, and home office.
For a typical business to have over $250K in NET PROFIT you'd probably be grossing well over $500K a year as a sole proprietor, and a lot more if you had employees or contract labor and cost of goods. Less than 2% of the 16 million small businesses in the US have NET PROFIT over $250K a year.
Nat'l insecurity, & JJ, I was being a little facetious, and, admittedly, throwing out some troll-bait. I was hoping to get some wingnut to jump on board, but all I got was a low-level dittohead to state the excruciatingly obvious; That only taxable income is taxable income.
The make-believe model being promoted by the media at large is that a small business grosing 250k will see a tax increase. Of course it's bullsh*t, I was only hoping to draw out somebody idiotic enough to back that up.
Unfortunately, none of the wingnuts were that stoopid, and (not the real) Solon was even stoopider,admitting that the GOP propaganda is just that, while trying to defend it.
Thanks, "Solon", you saved me some work.
Yes, colonel, I knew you were being facetious. Everyone knows you are too smart too be asking that question in ernest. But I like to take every opportunity possible to insult you. Just doing my job :-0)
s
Good, let the Bush tax cuts expire. They didn't help me or the guy next door or the family down the street, they didn't create jobs, they didn't create broad prosperity. The only thing the sweet deal that Bush gave the wealthy was to make them richer and the rest of us poorer. In fact, none of the junk you mentioned will affect working people like Joe, the plumber.
So, you believe that the purpose of taxes is to "spread the wealth around"?
Obama plans to increase taxes on oil companies. You don't think that will affect you?
See, the basic flaw in the whole "spread the wealth around" theory is the belief that there is only so much wealth to be had. Thus, the greedy rich people are hoarding wealth and not letting the little guy get his hands on it. Ummmm, WRONG!! The beauty of wealth is that it can be CREATED. You don't have to seize wealth from someone else to get wealth.
As far as the "rich get richer, poor get poorer" comment, I won't argue with you there. But there is a rather simple explanation for why that is: The rich continue to do the things that made them rich in the first place, and the poor continue to do the things that made them poor.
The benifits of any profit in the last 7.5 ought years have gone to at best two percent of the population.
The mortgage market is at 7.1 billion in worth.
The stock market is at (maybe) 22 trllion in worth.
The totally unregulated market in sliced and diced debt is rated at 45 trillion in worth(?).
I think I see where the problem could lie. I we can depend on you to consistently look away from this and at any convieniently labeled scapegoats.
Should be, think. after that last I.
"The benifits of any profit in the last 7.5 ought years have gone to at best two percent of the population."
After you spell check and grammar check that statement, would you care to provide some proof that it's true?
You can't goggle? You don't want to goggle? Your not interested in the issue, they get in the way of talking points?
Well that's the way Republicans look at it anyway. The rest of us in the real world know a different story. We know that the the wealthy do indeed do the things that continue to make them wealthy and that is, they shirk their moral obligation to be stewards of the communities that enable them to prosper. They pay through the nose for lobbyists in order to gain access to law makers who then write favorable legislation for these economic royalists. They keep living wages and unionization suppressed, they weasel out of their obligations to honor pensions and then they ship jobs overseas.
If you were able to get past your disdain for folks who just want to work hard and get by but don't happen to be talented capitalists, you might realize that these are actually the same people who have been the most productive labor force in the world and they have driven grea profis for the rich. And as you say, the elites have done the things keep them wealthy, like cut people out of the profits they helped create. Your down trickle pap has failed.
Well that's the way Republicans look at it anyway. The rest of us in the real world know a different story. We know that the the wealthy do indeed do the things that continue to make them wealthy and that is, they shirk their moral obligation to be stewards of the communities that enable them to prosper. They pay through the nose for lobbyists in order to gain access to law makers who then write favorable legislation for these economic royalists. They keep living wages and unionization suppressed, they weasel out of their obligations to honor pensions and then they ship jobs overseas.
If you were able to get past your disdain for folks who just want to work hard and get by but don't happen to be talented capitalists, you might realize that these are actually the same people who have been the most productive labor force in the world and they have driven grea profis for the rich. And as you say, the elites have done the things keep them wealthy, like cut people out of the profits they helped create. Your down trickle pap has failed.
Great, vote for Obama. Bring on the Marxism and out with the Capitalism, right?
You're already trotting out the Marxist label to apply to centrist policies. Guess you have a real problem then with St. Peter.
Why shouldn't I trot out the Marxist label. You just regurgitated Marxist philosophy. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.
Mary, you've been holding out on us. I didn't know you walked like a duck and quacked like a duck. :-0) My, you are a talented dame :-0) I can do a pretty mean Walter Brennan impression. :-0)
I can also imitate Groucho Marx. "I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I'll never know."
I'd love to see your imitation of Walter Brennan... He was the real McCoy. Speaking of real McCoy, this solon is such a cheap imitation of the Solon of old. Can we get a refund?
Plus this solon thinks I'm Roundhouse, apparently. We do look so much alike ;-)
If only I looked like you, Mary. If only.
Well, you walk like roundhouse and quack like roundhouse....! Talent, my firend! :-0) Sorry RH, just having some fun.
I can dig it. I only play a jerk on the world wide interwebs.
And yes, we definately need a refund on Solon. And my typing ;-0) friend instead of firend , sheesh, Too much wine here. That begs the question of what my problem is the rest of the time.
In real life, I am a sweet and tender man.
This I do know. Really I do. You have a good heart
And your orange sauce is unsurpassed. :-0)
Hey I've had no wine tonight, but I think that you're both shwell. Here's to ya!
Back at ya!
Here's to our midnight three way political tryst.
Wine? Did someone mention wine?
I think I'll have a glass! Salute!
Re: mary59's reply to SOLON;
You're already trotting out the Marxist label to apply to centrist policies. Guess you have a real problem then with St. Peter.
Right on, mary! Next, SOLON will be declaring Obama a commie! Let's ignore the fact that unregulated capitalism is squeezing the bell curve of distribution of wealth into the shape of a needle. As a society we're heading in the direction of Saudi Arabia. Indeed, among the most profitable companies, Halliburton has alredy moved its headquarters to one of the Arab emirates. This is the work of our current government which, like the rulers of the Middle East emirates, seem to believe that the average American has as many rights as the average camel driver. Hurrah for Capitalism! May it quickly bring us back to the good old days of totalitarianism!
To be a Republican these days you have to ignore a lot. Great example Tadekkorn...Halliburton moving to Dubai to avoid taxes (and probably criminal charges for overbilling, fraud, and other crimes.)
Basically, in the light of such unbelievable Republican ineptitude, you have not enough credibiliy to put anybody on the defensive with your tired, cutting room floor insults.
You merely wish it were that simple, you wish you could shut me down, put me on the defensive over my liberal principles of mutual responsibility and broad prosperity. But you cannot.
You do not seem to realize that when an economic ideology like market fundamentalism so utterly fails to fulfill its promise, it just makes one look ridiculous to keep preacing the same thing.
And thanks I will vote for Obama, proudly. I will vote to bring back stability to a middle class that has been raped by the radical GOP economic shock docrine.
We've already had "marxism" under Clinton, and in the 50s and 60s. Bring back "marxism", it works great.
How strange that I'm the conservative. I want to go back to old stuff that has been proven to work over and over again.
Don't forget the greatest socialist organization on the face of the earth, the U.S. armed forces. of which John McCain, has been a tremendous beneficiary.
There is not, and there never has been, a tax on DEATH in this country. Anyone who uses the term "death tax" is a moron.
Oh, pardon me, ESTATE tax!!
Hey, I got a good one. Can someone please answer me this:
Is it the responsibility of government to redistribute wealth? And if so, where specifically does it get the authority to do so?
A better question would be, does government have the moral obligation to set rules of the road that benefits all and creates an economy for all?
So, that's a non-answer?
I find it hilarious to all of the sudden hear a liberal talk about "morals".
LMAO!!!
What's next? Family values? Defending the unborn?
What a joke. Oh, and thanks for making a judgement about my credibility, your honor. Funny how conservative you sound sometimes.
Answers are constrained by the question itself, I see you made no effort to answer my question either. You did so because you know as well as I do that answers are constrained by the framing of he question. I have no more interest in prursuing your premise than you do pursuing mine, so cut the crap and ask an honest question if you want honest discussion.
And judgment? No. Simple observation.
If you want to talk about family values, I can go there. You have no cred here either, given the example that Sarahs fine Republican unwed teenage daughter presents. If you want to talk about abortion Ill go there, too. I have nothing to fear from an ideologue who has the arrogance to tell the rest of us when life begins and whose zealotry, no doubt, mirrors Palins rapist bill of rights, in which abortion is prohibited even in the case of rape and incest. Some fine values it takes to give rapists more rights over womens bodies than they have themselves.
So, you refuse to answer. Got it.
I have no further use for this loon. Anyone else?
Speaking of loons, I will answer when you answer. It is that simple.
By the way, Roundhouse, here I am performing my loon dance!
You're doing ducks AND loons? Dang, girl. You have quite the repertoire :-0)
Now don't be modest, julia. You have many talents as well. Now I must keep on with my loony duck routine ;-)
Despite this inferior solon and Bob Shieffer's omissions, all these people turned out in St Louis for an Obama rally (100,000 of them)
Hubba, hubba! Is that a...is it a...are you showing me a pic of your mating dance?
Even though I asked first, I will gladly comply with your request to answer the question.
The answer is NO.
Government's role is to provide a safe environment in which the people of this country can exercise their rights and freedoms. Our tax money is supposed to create such an environment. Government is not our nanny or our safeguard against failure.
Freedom means that we are free to succeed just as we are free to fall flat on our faces, and the socialist policies that have been taking over our way of life are working to ensure that we are not allowed to do either.
To me, that is NOT freedom.
So you will be among he first in line to give back your social security checks when they start rolling in? And if your parents should need home care, you will defer medicare and medicaid if you need help caring for your parents in their golden but declining years?
We do agree that , government's role is to provide a safe environment in which the people of this country can exercise their rights and freedoms. And that is what government does with programs like social security or unemployment insurance, our right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is guaranteed in that way.
You are more than wrong, however, when you say that , government is not our safeguard against failure. What is it they are doing if not providing safeguards when they insure the banking system, create a legal system to enforce contracts or create tax incentives for small business owners?
I believe that history proves our country is most prosperous when the risk of failure is lessened with a strong social safety net. A capitalist economy needs risk takers in order to thrive and if the risk of failure is too great, people will consign themselves to getting by instead of jumping in with both feet.
Now, I ask again?
Is it the responsibility of government to redistribute wealth? And if so, where specifically does it get the authority to do so?
Yes it does have the responsibility. This government has the responsibility to levy taxes to provide for the general welfare. This is in the Constitution. When taxes are levied to provide roads, police, fire, military, libraries and schools, the "wealth" is redistributed. Perhaps you don't like Medicare and Social Security, providing help to the elderly and disabled, the widow and orphan. Tough. Most societies have decided that they function better when they provide help for the "least among us."
I'm all for stopping the redistribution of wealth to the super rich. Perhaps you aren't aware of Corporate welfare?
Great!! I'm glad you (unlike roundhouse) finally answered. Now, allow me if you will, to challenge your thought process. First and foremost, when taxes are used to pay for such things as military, police, fire, libraries, schools, etc., that is not wealth redistribution. Everyone benefits from those services and facilities. (i.e., we receive a service or a product in exchange for our taxes) I get that. To me, that's "general welfare", or establishing a safe environment in which to exercise our liberties. My problem is the seizure of wealth from one individual ony to hand it over to another. This is unconstitutional and to some extent, criminal. Here's how I justify that statement.
First, you have to take a look at your Constitution (if you haven't shredded yours yet). It CLEARLY states that government derives it's powers from the consent of the governed. What this means according to many Constitutional scholars (yours truly included) is that we the people allow government to do things for us that we cannot accomplish as individuals (build roads, schools, establish law enforcement, commerce, etc.). What this also means is that we cannot ask or allow government to do things that we cannot LEGALLY do ourselves.
Simply stated: We cannot ask government to do something that, if we did the same, would be a crime.
Now, with that in mind, I ask you:
Does your next door neigbor have the legal authority to raid your bank account for his own personal use? The answer is a resounding NO.
So, how on Earth is it legal to ask the government to do exactly the same thing when, if your neighbor did it himself, it would be a crime punishable by law?
I can't wait for this explanation.
So, how on Earth is it legal to ask the government to do exactly the same thing when, if your neighbor did it himself, it would be a crime punishable by law?
Quit playing the victim, "Solon". Nobody's forcing you to be an American, nor a member of civilization. You can go pick fruit under the table, you can sell drugs for cash, you can move out to the woods and live in a hollow tree, and not pay any taxes except sales tax on the necessities you have to buy.
If you can survive on nuts and berries, and wipe your ass with leaves, you can completely eliminate your tax burden. Go for it, some of us are trying to have a civilization, and your childlike view of society is just boring to us.
To answer your lame-ass "gotcha" question (which others were kind enough not to answer), I'll give you the answer you want, and explain why it's too stupid for anybody but Sean Hannity & Rush Limbaugh to take seriously;
Yes, the job of the government is to distribute wealth.It's also the job of your local supermarket , your mechanic, and your corner 7-11. It's your job, and your bosses job (assuming you've moved out of your mommy's house and have a job).
Wealth was invented to be redistributed. That's called "business" and "commerce". Most adults and other non-Republicans understand that their time is too valuable to spend on the collective efforts of a society like military defense, cleaning the sewers, education, road repair, etc. That's why we decided, like most civilizations, to pitch in and have these menial jobs taken care of by government.
Now grow up, and stop whining.Someday, if you work hard enough, you'll make enough money that taxes won't be such a hardship for you.Until then, you're just a self-pitying little clown, and one more embarrassing weakling that the rest of us Americans don't need.
Thank you, now get to work!
Gee, Col. chicken-guy, did you bother to read my post? If so, thank you for reinforcing everything I said. You da' man!
First, you have to take a look at your Constitution (if you haven't shredded yours yet). It CLEARLY states that government derives it's powers from the consent of the governed. - anti-solon
Maybe you shredded your copy of the Constitution too soon. Could you please show us exactly WHERE in the US Constitution it "clearly states that the government derives it's [sic] powers from the consent of the governed"? I don't see that phrase anywhere in it.
It wasn't a quote, Bill. But, if I must, it's right there at the beginning.
"We, the people"
Constitutional government is strictly limited because government itself is created by the people. Political power is legitimate only because the people have authorized and established it. This is why the words of the Constitution's preamble merit close attention: "We The People," the Constitution begins, "do ordain and establish this Constitution." Simple logic offers a clear explanation of these words from the preamble, and this meaning is confirmed by an examination of the writings of the founding fathers. All political power, by nature, belongs first to the people themselves. When the people see fit to create a political society, they freely give up some of this power in order to establish a government.
See, you had to use quite a few words to draw a parallel between what you state is "clearly" stated n the Constitution and what is actually written. I'm not arguing that the principle isn't implied, but it requires some interpretation to arrive at it. It isn't really "clearly stated" as you claim it is.
A lot of people are able, through personal interpretation, to find things in the Constitution that are not there or, at best, barely there. An example of this is the oft-repeated baseless claim that the Constitution is based on christian principles. Another, more reasonable interpretation is that the Constitution contains a right to privacy.
I don't see how much clearer it can be. We ordained the Constitution and we created the government. Hello?
I am not in the least interested in your "interpretation" that the Constitution contains a right to privacy, seeing as you have not outlined the criteria for said "privacy".
One thing I would love to entertain is your reference to religion and the Constitution. It reminds me of a phrase that I hear bandied about wrecklessly by politicians, media-types, etc:
"Separation of church and State"
Could you, please, great thinker of thinker, explain where this concept was dreamed up?
Not that you deserve any answers around here after your disgraceful conduct this past weekend, but since you're too lazy to google it yourself, from James Madison.
Here's an excerpt: (Madison addressing the General Assembly of Virginia in 1785:
Back in the early 1800s, there were a lot of private fire departments as "we the people" hadn't decided that this was a collective good. The rich could afford to pay and the poor had to watch their houses burn down. After a long time of this, the rich finally figured out that it was a public good to collectively fund fire departments, since any house burning could spread to other buildings.
Now that's your metaphor, if you can understand it. The corporate welfare link should open your eyes to who is really taking the taxpayer dollars.
I know you don't really want an answer to your loaded question, but I'm going to anyway. The purpose of government is to provide those services that are better provided by a central governing body than by private enterprise. Funding is required to accomplish this and the populace is unequally capable of providing this funding. As a result of this, more funding must, by necessity, come more from the wealthy than from the lower income classes. Many of the benefits of those services are not evenly distributed to all citizens. In many cases, the wealthy benefit more than do those of lower income. However, many other of those services are of generally equal benefit to all and a small number benefit the poor more greatly, so in these cases the delivery of those benefits could be very loosely described as wealth distribution.
There is not, and never has been, a government policy of direct wealth distribution. It is, though, a necessary, indirect result of providing the services desired of government.
Obama's policies also do no qualify as direct distribution. His policies are not socialistic. Capitalism would not be hampered in the least by them. Claims that Obama is a socialist do nothing but show the ignorance of the claimant.
The great Solon's dead.
No, no, no, no, hes outside looking in.
The Great Solon's dead.
No, no, no, no, hes outside looking in.
Hell fly his astral plane,
Takes you trips around the bay,
Brings you back the same day,
The great Solon, the great Solon
The great Solons dead.
No, no, no, no, hes outside looking in.
The great Solons dead.
No, no, no, no, hes outside looking in.
Hell fly his astral plane,
Takes you trips around the bay,
Brings you back the same day,
The great Solon, the great Solon.
Along the coast youll hear them boast
About a light they say that shines so clear.
So raise your glass, well drink a toast
To the little man who sells you thrills along the pier.
Hell take you up, hell bring you down,
Hell plant your feet back firmly on the ground.
He flies so high, he swoops so low,
He knows exactly which way hes gonna go.
The great Solon, the great Solon.
Hell take you up, hell bring you down,
Hell plant your feet back on the ground.
Hell fly so high, hell swoop so low.
The great Solon.
Hell fly his astral plane.
Hell take you trips around the bay.
Hell bring you back the same day.
The great Solon, the great Solon.
The great Solon, the great Solon.
The great Solon.
That's beautiful, man. Almost moved me to tears. Thank you, eddy. You are a good person.
A couple months back I was net surfing and landed on a (non-partisan I thought) site I'd been to a number of times but which I'd previously not noticed had a forum. I was about to head off to an economics oriented site when I thought perhaps those at that first site might be interested in my question as it concerned everyone, having to do with the economics effects of a GOP President vesrus a Democratic one.
After I posted (neutrally phrased) my question I was very surprised to see a large and almost uniformly pro-GOP response and even more surprised at the hostility to the Democratic Party, especially when it became clear to them what my politics were.
I'd never been under an assault like that on a message board where I was outnumbered greatly and practically alone. But an interesting thing happened. Half way into this 3-4 hour beatdown of me, I noticed I was channeling various people here. Phrases, styles, put-downs, etc. I had read here, but which I personally had never written or said before, were coming out of me to good effect. A half dozen distinct people from this site and many more who were fuzzier, were sources of inspiration. I didn't rise to the challenge as much as the people I'd unknowingly learned from in ways I hadn't even imagined was possible, were. Through me, responding in ways I didn't even know I could---I hadn't ever done so in the past---many spoke as one.
Most prominent among them was Solon. Some say everlasting life is guaranteed through the people we affect during our brief stray here. And they in turn affect others who succeed them. If this is so, I think the Solon we knew will be around a very long time.
I think the Solon we knew will be around a very long time.
That was very well said, Eddy. I do like your way of putting things. The real Solon will be remembered here fondly for a long, long time. I just I knew what happened to him. And I wish he would come back.
Hey, eddy, nice post. I like the community theme you invoke and, like you, I miss Solon.
(Nice Moody Blues reference.)
Solon, our firey philosopher:
Your name now seems to be available. It's my understanding that banning someone isn't a lifetime event, and we wish you would return to post on here. Thanks.
Kuewl!
Which among your shifting identities are you?
Jasonl33 seems to have asumed my screen name on this thread. I think it's an admission that he's had his as kicked so thoroughly that he's got nothing left but to completely submit and live as a parasite. Suck me, Jason! I accept your surrender.
Attention, the stoned virgin Jasonl33 has stolen my name and is posting statements that seem to be coming from me. Believe me, they are not. Do NOT flag his posts as it will get me banned from this site instead of him. He has also found a way into my personal email account and has acquired my computer's IP address. He now has access to all of my files and personal information. I beg of you, do NOT engage this troll!!
Sorry, sport, You're already exposed directly above your post. Very cute, being so out of bullets that trolling with other peoples screen names is all you have,but you're only making more of an idiot of yourself with every post.
But thanks for providing a shining example of conservative thought. Jr. High level bullsh*t.Tomorrow's monday, back to gettting your head thumped by the 7th graders! ;0)
Someones going to the trouble of doing this. To bad they are unable to support their positions honestly. More of the, victory at any cost, population.
Against this most of the regulars know each other's ways. Trying to imitate your posts is hard to impossible anyway.
I'd like to see the site take action on this sorta thing.