See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #101
   On March 26th, 2009 at 7:18 pm, garydt said:

   Clinton, LGm,, had the .com bubble and he put the war on terror on the back burner and cut the miitary down further then did bush 1. As I recall JFK also had tax cuts and and the economy boomed. During Bush 1 and Reagon, they produced huge revenues but the congress even outspent that. LGM Asking for more money when you don’t have any doesn’t increase the revenues. I doubt if Ford Chrysler, and GM well benefit with further tax increases which will increase the cost of their cars. Does it make sense to tax further the producers now?

2. #102
   On March 26th, 2009 at 7:21 pm, chapoutier said:

   Chap, you are on notice.

   Oh no!!! Do I go up on a big board like Colbert?

   You may think being an asshole is clever, but we on this site are working toward saving our nation.

   You may think using that word is not against the terms of use, but you’d unsurprisingly be wrong.

   I am officially asking Michelle to rid this forum of your useless input.

   Officially? Is there a form? Can you cc me on the emial? Use chapmm@yahoo.com.

3. #103
   On March 26th, 2009 at 7:22 pm, chapoutier said:

   chap is like my uncle with alzheimers who comes for Thanksgiving and wants to play croquet in the snow. Ya gotta love him, but you really don’t want to hand him a mallet.

   See now you are just feeding my ego, comparing me to an old dude with Alzheimer. What next? Superman?

4. #104
   On March 26th, 2009 at 7:31 pm, swede said:

   On March 26th, 2009 at 7:22 pm, chapoutier said:

   Sorry dude. just trying to lighten this pitchfork bus tour up. I for one appreciate contrary dialog. Unlike lgm who drops some provocative snark and doesn’t stick around to discuss it.

   And I have kryptonite, if necessary.

5. #105
   On March 26th, 2009 at 7:32 pm, chapoutier said:

   See here is something terribly on topic.

   I absolutely agree that pointing to the Clinton years balanced budgets is a canard. It was the tech boom, obviously that helped a great deal. But I think it is equally unwise to attribute the rise in revenues during Bush too much to tax cuts. I heard this morning that the great majority in the increase in GDP during Bush was from the financial sector, i.e., people making money by pushing money around, not creating anything of value.

6. #106
   On March 26th, 2009 at 7:34 pm, chapoutier said:

   Unlike lgm who drops some provocative snark and doesn’t stick around to discuss it.

   I’d make some snarky comment about lgm probably having a better social life than me, but that would just feed the stereotype.

   So I won’t.

7. #107
   On March 26th, 2009 at 7:47 pm, RabbidSquirrel said:

   I have to agree with Chap on this one.

   a document that outlines Republican solutions on the budget and other major issues facing the American people.

   This is just marketing collateral – which is just one step up from an ‘Elevator Pitch’.

   I know, I know, I know… they only had 8 years (and 2 years of a never-ending campaign) to produce something of substance.

   I’ve got an idea… maybe the GOP should spend a couple of million dollars to try and “Rebrand” themselves. In the business world that means changing your logo, your colors and trying to create a catchy new name for yourself (but you’re still the crappy old company with the locomotive/battleship infrastructure that was there last quarter)

   Translation: Maybe ‘this’ will work long enough that I can sell my stock options for a profit and hopefully be recruited to go work for my competitors.

8. #108
   On March 26th, 2009 at 7:47 pm, swede said:

   On March 26th, 2009 at 7:32 pm, chapoutier said:
   But I think it is equally unwise to attribute the rise in revenues during Bush too much to tax cuts. I heard this morning that the great majority in the increase in GDP during Bush was from the financial sector, i.e., people making money by pushing money around, not creating anything of value.

   Wrong. Tax cuts stimulate the economy. Thats a given, but I agree to much of the market bubble was paper and not real GNP. That was going on long before Bush though.

9. #109
   On March 26th, 2009 at 8:01 pm, right4life said:

   we need to keep chap around…he’s always good for a few laughs..especially when we talk about evolution and his hairygod darwiin!

10. #110
    On March 26th, 2009 at 8:14 pm, RogerCfromSD said:

    Chap, I CCd my request to your e-mail.

11. #111
    On March 26th, 2009 at 8:20 pm, rooster said:

    On March 26th, 2009 at 7:11 pm, chapoutier said:
    To you perhaps. Feel free to just skip right over my posts, big guy. Or feel free to petition MM to ban me. Otherwise I will continue to say whatever the hell I want.

    And let’s see who actually brings “me” up most of the times.

    Exactly why I mostly ignore you,lgm and other like-minded knuckleheads! You see this site as a challenge to see how many will respond to your stupidity. I will usually skip right over my your posts, just like you ask, ol’ obnoxious and wise-ass one.

12. #112
    On March 26th, 2009 at 8:26 pm, chapoutier said:

    I will usually skip right over my your posts, just like you ask, ol’ obnoxious and wise-ass one.

    Then we are cool. But I seem to recall you being the one that makes o a comment on any thread I am on. I hardly notice your presence until you take some stupid, unprovoked, jab at me.

    On topic:

    swede,

    I did find this information, having a bit of trouble interpreting it but, actually it seems that, as a percentage of corporate contribution to the GDP, financial vs. non-financial has remained pretty steady between 2001-2008, all around 13%. Color me surprised. That is of course, assuming I am reading it right.

    I understand if you don’t want to respond to me though, seeing as I am ON NOTICE. I might drag you down with me.

13. #113
    On March 26th, 2009 at 8:28 pm, John Deaux said:

    I don’t know who gets more people riled for no good reason, chapoutier or happyscrapper.

14. #114
    On March 26th, 2009 at 8:34 pm, Jeff2161 said:

    C’mon, I like Chap…He does have an interesting point, or two…A closed mind is NOT open to new ideas.

15. #115
    On March 26th, 2009 at 8:36 pm, Jeff2161 said:

    BTW, I think the GOP budget plan should have more numbers pencilled in.

16. #116
    On March 26th, 2009 at 8:37 pm, Khyris said:

    We almost never agree, but I vote AGAINST censorship. I’ve never seen him start anything abusive… although to be fair I don’t exactly go hunting for everything he’s ever posted.

17. #117
    On March 26th, 2009 at 8:38 pm, ajmontana said:

    It’s fun to take pokes at Chapstick if it doesn’t result in a bloodbath…. he takes it well, kinda like pokin the Pillsbury dough boy.

18. #118
    On March 26th, 2009 at 8:53 pm, John Deaux said:

    I like chap and scrapper, I just don’t know why people react to their posts more than others.

19. #119
    On March 26th, 2009 at 8:55 pm, swede said:

    chapoutier said:
    I did find this information, having a bit of trouble interpreting it but, actually it seems that, as a percentage of corporate contribution to the GDP, financial vs. non-financial has remained pretty steady between 2001-2008, all around 13%. Color me surprised. That is of course, assuming I am reading it right.

    I’m no economist, but I think value added is a little slippery. Either way, I see steady growth over the period.

    I guess I base my assessment on personal experience. I was managing a recreation business in the 80′s when Reagan brought in corporate tax cuts. We wanted to expand, and the accelerated depretiation schedule enabled us to purchase $1.2 mil in new equipment. It provided jobs and revinue for the suppliers, and jobs for our people to operate the equipment. We had incentive, where as if in the same boat now, I would say forget it.

    I understand if you don’t want to respond to me though, seeing as I am ON NOTICE. I might drag you down with me.

    I can swim. Michelle has a broader view than some folks here. If we are really “working here to build a better nation” we do it through dialog, or we fail. Your sarcasm maybe rubs some the wrong way. I like it.

    If this site is restricted to one point of view, I’m outa here anyway.

    Oh, and your feet stink and your mama dresses you funny.

20. #120
    On March 26th, 2009 at 8:55 pm, Jeff2161 said:

    On March 26th, 2009 at 8:53 pm, John Deaux said:
    I like chap and scrapper, I just don’t know why people react to their posts more than others.

    Closed, insular minds I guess…

21. #121
    On March 26th, 2009 at 9:06 pm, jjmurphy said:

    I like chap and scrapper, I just don’t know why people react to their posts more than others.

    Both have passion.

22. #122
    On March 26th, 2009 at 9:09 pm, chapoutier said:

    We wanted to expand, and the accelerated depretiation schedule enabled us to purchase $1.2 mil in new equipment.

    These are almost always a good idea. Very effective.

23. #123
    On March 26th, 2009 at 9:13 pm, JT said:

    On March 26th, 2009 at 7:18 pm, swede said:

    Geez, lighten up. chap is like my uncle with alzheimers who comes for Thanksgiving and wants to play croquet in the snow. Ya gotta love him, but you really don’t want to hand him a mallet.

    I’d hand chap the mallet and tell him lgm is Karl Rove.

24. #124
    On March 26th, 2009 at 9:16 pm, chapoutier said:

    I’d hand chap the mallet and tell him lgm is Karl Rove.

    Are you kidding? Karl Rove polarized Dems so much they finally developed a spine and got organized. He is wayyyy more hated than Bush. That kind of enemy is a useful thing to have.

    The only real question is whether we hate Rove or Cheney more.

25. #125
    On March 26th, 2009 at 9:20 pm, JT said:

    Ah sh*t… I guess lgm stays. For now.

26. #126
    On March 26th, 2009 at 9:23 pm, swede said:

    The only real question is whether we hate Rove or Cheney more.

    Libs are equal opportunity loathers. There’s enough hate for everyone.

27. #127
    On March 26th, 2009 at 9:23 pm, JT said:

    On March 26th, 2009 at 9:16 pm, chapoutier said:

    Are you kidding? Karl Rove polarized Dems so much they finally developed a spine and got organized. He is wayyyy more hated than Bush. That kind of enemy is a useful thing to have.

    You mean it wasn’t Howard Dean?

28. #128
    On March 26th, 2009 at 9:24 pm, rooster said:

    Are you kidding? Karl Rove polarized Dems so much they finally developed a spine and got organized. He is wayyyy more hated than Bush. That kind of enemy is a useful thing to have.

    The only real question is whether we hate Rove or Cheney more.

    Wrong again chapstick. Pravda made Rove out to be your enemy. Without the Stalinist media, dems/libtards would be near extinction!

29. #129
    On March 26th, 2009 at 9:25 pm, chapoutier said:

    You mean it wasn’t Howard Dean?

    BYAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

30. #130
    On March 26th, 2009 at 9:31 pm, Jeff2161 said:

    Howard Dean…Cool, calm, collected, certifiably insane…
    

31. #131
    On March 26th, 2009 at 9:35 pm, swede said:

    Jeff2161 said:
    Howard Dean…Cool, calm, collected, certifiably insane…

    If only they ran him instead of Dear Leader. Sigh.

32. #132
    On March 26th, 2009 at 9:38 pm, Joy said:

    Chap, as usual you’ve got it all wrong…

    It’s more like YEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAhhhh!!!!

33. #133
    On March 26th, 2009 at 9:42 pm, chapoutier said:

    Chap, as usual you’ve got it all wrong…

    It’s more like YEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAhhhh!!!!

    Au contraire mon cherie amour. The “B” is there.

    Google “Howard Dean Byahh.” It’s even in the Urban Dictionary, which is the final authority on all things pop culture.

34. #134
    On March 26th, 2009 at 9:44 pm, swede said:

    I think MM pronounces it

    YEEEEAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGG.

    Hard call.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDwODbl3muE

35. #135
    On March 26th, 2009 at 9:47 pm, chapoutier said:

    I think MM pronounces it

    YEEEEAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGG.

    I will defer to our hostess in a blatant attempt to curry favor so she will spare my online existence.

36. #136
    On March 26th, 2009 at 9:52 pm, swede said:

    I will defer to our hostess in a blatant attempt to curry favor so she will spare my online existence.

    Pandering. Typical Democrite.

37. #137
    On March 26th, 2009 at 9:53 pm, chapoutier said:

    Pandering. Typical Democrite.

    I will also make her next 3 car payments in exchange for her merciful benevolence.

38. #138
    On March 26th, 2009 at 11:12 pm, Jeff2161 said:

    Hurry MM Lease a Bentley…

39. #139
    On March 26th, 2009 at 11:42 pm, Joy said:

    Ha! I shall claim victory as well since my rendition is closest. There is no ‘B’ sound (I listened several times much to the detriment of my ears and eyes).

    The Urban Dictionary is obviously run by communists who rewrite history to deceive the masses.

40. #140
    On March 27th, 2009 at 3:21 am, Papa Louie said:

    swede said:

    The only real question is whether we hate Rove or Cheney more.

    Libs are equal opportunity loathers. There’s enough hate for everyone.

    You’ve got that right, swede. Anyone who dares get in the way of the Liberal agenda – be it Rove, Cheney, or Joe the Plumber – is instantly hated by the Left. Liberals are the most vocal about their hatred, yet it is their enemies who get labeled “hate mongers.” For some reason, it’s OK to hate a hatemonger, just like it’s OK for Bill Ayers and his ilk to use violence to advocate for love and peace.

    It’s also OK, from the leftist point of view, to hate the rich even though they are a minority class. The left uses class hatred (or as Churchill put it: “the gospel of envy“) to further their agenda. It doesn’t seem to matter that the richest of the rich are liberals like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and the Kennedy clan.

    The use of hate to unite the Left against a common enemy is one of the few principles that never changes for them. Left-wing professors continue to teach hate to our children right under our noses, just as they learned it from their professors.

    Advocating hate and teaching children to hate is an important part of the Leftist Agenda. It was taught to them by one of their most revered secular prophets:

    We must teach our children to hate. … This hatred… is verily the “beginning of all wisdom,” the basis of every socialist and communist movement and of its success.
    — Vladimir Lenin

    If you’re not concerned that liberals have taken over the classroom, here’s something else to think about:

    The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.
    — Abraham Lincoln

41. #141
    On March 27th, 2009 at 5:12 am, graysonret said:

    Just got an e-mail from my bank that my tax refund has been direct-deposited. I wonder if I should print out the e-mail and frame it…. It may be the last one I ever get. I can hang it in my den, look at it occasionally, and remember the “good old days”. Grandkids can ask what it is. I can explain, to their confusion, that the government, once, used to send refunds. Of course, they will shake their indoctrinated heads and point out how much of a waste that is, sending refunds, when it could be used for much better benefits, like the “brown shirts” organization, or “global cooling” (In their days, it will be “cooling” again, not “warming”. Got to keep the population alarmed.)

42. #142
    On March 27th, 2009 at 8:54 am, jangar said:

    Spot on Papa Louie AND graysonret! What bears repeating is:

    The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.
    — Abraham Lincoln

    and:

    they will shake their indoctrinated heads and point out how much of a waste that is, sending refunds, when it could be used for much better benefits, like the “brown shirts” organization, or “global cooling” (In their days, it will be “cooling” again, not “warming”

43. #143
    On March 27th, 2009 at 12:19 pm, FirstSkirt said:

    I don’t usually agree with Mr. Chapoutier; however, he does not do the LGM (putz) thing, just dropping snarky bombs, and very often, he is very, very funny. I just loved his post about groveling for benevolence! He is someone who brings good arguments to the table. Not that my vote counts for anything on MM’s site, but I’d miss him if he didn’t comment.

44. #144
    On March 27th, 2009 at 2:20 pm, CWinNY said:

    I will also vote not to ban Chap. He actually conceded a point to me about Sarah Palin accepting per diem for staying at home (although this was before the election, and I did see him post something a couple weeks back where he back slid on this). I have yet to see some of the other liberals hang around to actually debate an issue (lgm, Ilovemycountry, etc.).

    Chap has also been right on a couple issues – like the blog about mandatory volunteerism a couple days back. Let him stay, I enjoy debating someone who actually uses facts, data, and logic (must be an engineer thing).

45. #145
    On March 27th, 2009 at 2:30 pm, chapoutier said:

    He actually conceded a point to me about Sarah Palin accepting per diem for staying at home (although this was before the election, and I did see him post something a couple weeks back where he back slid on this).

    I don’t recall sliding back on this at all. I agree that the per diems were perfectly legal and her failure to pay the taxes on them was somewhat understandable since she wasn’t issued a 1099. I think the comparison was to Geithner, which I thought was absurd.

    Am I misremembering something?

46. #146
    On March 27th, 2009 at 2:54 pm, CWinNY said:

    Chap,

    The issue was whether it was acceptable for Sarah to accept per diem while living at home in Wasila. I pointed out that the state of Alaska saved money by not opening up the governors mansion, and staffing it, etc. I asked if you would turn down free coffee in the break room, company car, etc.

    While the issue a couple weeks back was about paying taxes, the dispute we had last fall was on the acceptability of accepting money to live at home. The facts were that it was a win-win for both the state and Palin (both saved money and/or inconvenience by her working from home). You did say she was not at fault if her 1099 was not correct, but you made a comment about whether it was acceptable to take the per diem or not.

    I suppose I could go do some research, but I am disinclined to do so. Just accept that I appreciate someone who stays reasonable and will concede a point (something I aspire to do if it applies to me).

47. #147
    On March 27th, 2009 at 2:57 pm, CWinNY said:

    Chap,

    You may not have noticed anytime that I have conceded a point, what usually happens is that I just don’t bother posting when I agree with you. I don’t see the necessity to do so. Just to keep this on topic, I agree with you that the Republicans did not present a budget alternative – just some talking points.

48. #148
    On March 27th, 2009 at 3:34 pm, Yashmak said:

    I agree with you that the Republicans did not present a budget alternative – just some talking points.

    -CWinNY

    I was going to post a comment indicating just about that exact sentiment.

49. #149
    On March 27th, 2009 at 9:51 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

    It is being reported at various conservative sites that Boehner didn’t even bother to contact the Democrat Blue Dogs for support nor did he make much of an effort to rally the troops for a sustained effort to pass this “bill”. There is no bill.

    Once again, another example of empty posturing by a Republican has been. What a pathetic bunch. The GOP needs new leaders, conservatives who believe!