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 January 21st, 2010 at 12:34 am, corkie said:

   On January 20th, 2010 at 9:32 pm, zyzzyg said:

   Yep, what Gibbs said is true. In fact, people are more likely to vote against someone than they are willing to vote for that person’s opponent.

   Puleeeze.

   Here’s what Gibbs said at the 6:30 minute mark.

   The anger that the President addressed more than a year ago to get elected, the anger that we’ve seen throughout this year is very similar to the anger we saw last night.

   There’s nothing accurate about that so don’t say that Gibbs spoke the truth.

   Let me make this easy for you.

   The angers are very different. The American people know the angers are different and aren’t going to be fooled or confused by this spin.

   Gibbs and Obama are just making themselves look stupid by attempting to assert otherwise.

2. #102
   On January 21st, 2010 at 12:36 am, chapoutier said:

   especially if he really has been using it too much.

   Only “too much” in the sense that “Joe Pesci plays an Italian-American with mob ties, funny voice and a Napoleon Complex” too much.

3. #103
   On January 21st, 2010 at 12:40 am, JHSII said:

   Chapoutier trolled:

   If he doesn’t like it maybe he should stop doing it.

   just asking you to clarify the “it.”

   Maybe you should read my post.

4. #104
   On January 21st, 2010 at 12:43 am, chapoutier said:

   The angers are very different.

   I think they are both anti-incumbency, to a certain extent.

   Do you disagree?

5. #105
   On January 21st, 2010 at 12:46 am, chapoutier said:

   Maybe you should read my post.

   I did. It was a model of ineloquence and non-specificity. You claim I am projecting. I ask, again, what? Use your words.

6. #106
   On January 21st, 2010 at 12:57 am, chapoutier said:

   I think they are both anti-incumbency, to a certain extent.

   Actually, strike that. That answer sucks.

   I do think the angers were different. I think that there was a good proportion of the population that was super motivated because they are opposed to Obama, period. I think there was a fair number that either oppose HCR in general or bought into Brown’s argument that HCR is bad for Mass. because they already have it on a state level (which actually may be true). And I think that there were a fair number of people that were simply angry by an aloof, ineffectual, elitist candidate.

   I suspect very few were angry over torture, Iraq, tax cuts for the rich, or Cheney.

7. #107
   On January 21st, 2010 at 1:05 am, chep said:

   Let’s see some more turnaround before I have to bust out my pitchfork and torch.

8. #108
   On January 21st, 2010 at 1:26 am, JHSII said:

   chappy trolled:

   Maybe you should read my post.

   I did. It was a model of ineloquence and non-specificity. You claim I am projecting. I ask, again, what? Use your words.

   You really do read into a post whatever you want to read into it regardless of what was actually posted. Thanks for clarifying that. I’ll keep that as a future reference.

9. #109
   On January 21st, 2010 at 1:34 am, T-Bone said:

   History tends to reveal the fundamental reasons for cerain events. History does take time. (pun intended)

   The truth will come out eventually. The spin peels off like layers of an onion.

10. #110
    On January 21st, 2010 at 3:26 am, corkie said:

    On January 21st, 2010 at 12:57 am, chapoutier said:

    I suspect very few were angry over torture, Iraq, tax cuts for the rich, or Cheney.

    Concur.

    Btw, what is a tax cut for the rich? Is that anytime someone with a higher income receives a greater tax reduction (in actual dollars) than someone with a lower income (in actual dollars)? So a 10% across the board tax cut would be considered a tax cut for the rich? In fact, a 50% tax cut on very low incomes and a 5% tax cut on higher incomes would still be considered a tax cut for the rich, right?

    And if only the rich paid taxes, then every and all tax cuts would be a tax cut for the rich, right?

    Or don’t you subscribe to that crap?

11. #111
    On January 21st, 2010 at 3:29 am, corkie said:

    On January 20th, 2010 at 9:10 pm, WarEagle82 said:

    Or Obama is as delusional as Corkie and Chappy.

    Please explain my delusions.

12. #112
    On January 21st, 2010 at 7:21 am, happy2behere said:

    The Smartest Man in the World stooped to the “all dogs have four legs…” analogy. I thought the lawyers had to pass logic class.

13. #113
    On January 21st, 2010 at 7:36 am, jamesgreenidge said:

    Lani Davis on Fox Friends today;

    “We were pushing big changes too fast so that scared people, so instead we should proceed instead with incremental change.”

    “Incremental Change”

    Shouldn’t he phrase it as “Creep Change”, or going to hell on a slower train? No Lani — we want to STOP the train!

    James Greenidge
    Queens NY

14. #114
    On January 21st, 2010 at 7:48 am, stillontheroad said:

    Would the resident liberals please clue a dumb ole provincial like me in on something?
    To wit: Every time the Sock Puppet opens his mouth and says the policies of the last 8 years are the fault of a broken system, bad government etc etc – does he mean the last 2 years of the Bush Admin when the Senate and House had a Democrat Majority? Does he include the first year of his bumbling admin in that 8 years also?

15. #115
    On January 21st, 2010 at 8:44 am, chapoutier said:

    You really do read into a post whatever you want to read into it regardless of what was actually posted.

    Actually, I couldn’t read a damn thing into your post because you didn’t say anything of substance. You claim I am “projecting” yet can’t seem to specify how. Do you even know what “projecting” means? Or did you just throw it in there because you saw lots of other posters use it in the past?

16. #116
    On January 21st, 2010 at 8:48 am, chapoutier said:

    Is that anytime someone with a higher income receives a greater tax reduction (in actual dollars) than someone with a lower income (in actual dollars)?

    No. That would mean, by definition, that almost every tax cut is a tax for the rich.

    I think there can be a quantitative defintion of “rich” (at least for tax purposes). I do not think the threshold is $200 or $250K or whatever the Obama admin was using in 2008.

17. #117
    On January 21st, 2010 at 9:50 am, corkie said:

    On January 21st, 2010 at 8:48 am, chapoutier said:

    That would mean, by definition, that almost every tax cut is a tax for the rich.

    So you agree that it’s almost impossible to structure a tax cut which doesn’t benefit high earners more than lower earners (on a dollars for dollars basis).

    Therefore, you’re probably honest enough to agree that calling “almost every tax cut” a tax cut for the rich is Orwellian socialist speak.

18. #118
    On January 21st, 2010 at 10:49 am, chapoutier said:

    So you agree that it’s almost impossible to structure a tax cut which doesn’t benefit high earners more than lower earners (on a dollars for dollars basis).

    Yes. but I would also state that a “dollar for dollar” way of viewing the benefits of a tax cut is simplistic and not terribly useful.

    Therefore, you’re probably honest enough to agree that calling “almost every tax cut” a tax cut for the rich is Orwellian socialist speak.

    I suppose, but I don’t think I was claiming that, nor do I believe Obama did.

19. #119
    On January 21st, 2010 at 12:11 pm, corkie said:

    Maybe I’ve been too tough on you.

    It seems as if you wouldn’t call a 10% tax cut across the board as a tax cut for the rich. Is that true?

20. #120
    On January 21st, 2010 at 12:23 pm, chapoutier said:

    It seems as if you wouldn’t call a 10% tax cut across the board as a tax cut for the rich. Is that true?

    No I would not.

21. #121
    On January 21st, 2010 at 12:25 pm, chapoutier said:

    For reference, my original “tax cuts for the rich” was not necessarily to reflect my own view, but rather the campaign rhetoric of Obama which fed the anger he is referring to.

22. #122
    On January 21st, 2010 at 12:56 pm, corkie said:

    Roger.

23. #123
    On January 21st, 2010 at 1:02 pm, happy2behere said:

    There goes the thread, again.

24. #124
    On January 21st, 2010 at 5:17 pm, Mister P said:

    Looks like some liberal troll thinks this is his board.

25. #125
    On January 21st, 2010 at 5:38 pm, chapoutier said:

    Looks like some liberal troll thinks this is his board.

    I just respond to comments made at me, my friend. For whatever reason, people seem to like to engage me.

    Don’t blame me if you have nothing compelling or unique to offer.

26. #126
    On January 21st, 2010 at 10:40 pm, WarEagle82 said:

    Yeah, just because Chappy didn’t see it that means “it didn’t happen.”

    The number “500,000″ was bandied around by more than one source.

    Thank goodness those initial estimates appear to be overly pessimistic.

    http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/01/13/in-haiti-possibly-500000-dead/

    http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:YPDBEksxU78J:airamerica.com/news/01-13-2010/thousands-feared-dead-in-haiti-quake-many-trapped/+500,000+dead+in+haiti&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    And from Chappy’s favorite source:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Haiti_earthquake

    Casualties
    Main article: Casualties of the 2010 Haiti earthquake
    A Haitian boy receives treatment at a MINUSTAH logistics base.

    The earthquake struck in the most populated area of the country; estimates of the number of dead increased from 45,000 shortly after the earthquake to 200,000 six days later.[95][96][3] The day after the earthquake the International Red Cross estimated that as many as 3 million people had been affected by the quake.[7]

    The Haitian government reported that nearly 70,000 bodies had been recovered by official crews.[97] Some reports indicated 250,000 people sustained injuries, and as many as one million Haitians were left homeless.[98] Experts caution that any final death toll will be a “guesstimate” as the scale of the disaster makes an accurate tally impossible.[99]

    More than a week later, nobody knows how many are dead. And experts now agree that “an accurate tally [of casualties] impossible.”

    Gee, I think I said that too, but I said it days ago…

    But Chappy knows EVERYTHING. It is just another manifestation of the mental illness that seems to plague so many demented and delusional lefties…

27. #127
    On January 22nd, 2010 at 10:00 am, chapoutier said:

    You can save the gratuitous insult, WE82. No ones reading this thread anymore. No one to appreciate your e-tough.

    This is what I said:

    And in any case, in the original thread, you know…the one you were replying to… no one mentioned anything close to 500,000 (except you).

    You were specifically going after soap-box, who said 100 to 200 thousand. But in your typically ass backward fashion, you have decided to argue a point only YOU brought up. I suppose I understand why you do it. That is the only way you will ever win an argument.