Can we please have someone like James Joyner or Daniel Larison or someone with a grasp of logic and facts beyond AM radio talking points here for this feature in Conn's absence?

Wow, if Amanda Carpenter is the future of conservative thought, I feel quite optimistic for the future of liberalism.

Quoting kidneystones: Bill Scherr owes everyone an apology. Twenty FBI agents present. Not one heard anyone yell 'kill him'. The FBI can't find a single witness to corroborate the reporter's claim. But...

If there were any FBI agents present, they were there on their own time. There was a Secret Service protective detail present. The Secret Service will NEVER tell you how many agents were there - they will provide absolutely no details about their methods, procedures, etc. They will also never comment on any investigations they are conducting. The agent in the story said that he did not hear anyone yell "Kill him". He asked for the public to relay any information they had. The protective detail is concerned with protecting their charge. They cannot hear what every bozo in the crowd yells. Whether or not someone yelled "Kill him" is not something that will or will not be confirmed by the Secret Service. If you want to deny this story, make up a better excuse that is not full of holes.

"canard"? Ms. Carpenter referred to Mr. Scher's comment about ACORN (that there's been no evidence that the padding of voter registration forms names has led to actual voter fraud) a couple of times as a "canard". I have never heard the word used in that context before. Traditionally, other than a type of airplane part, as Merrium-Webster and other dictionaries define it, a canard is "a false or unfounded report or story ; especially : a fabricated report b: a groundless rumor or belief". That seems an inappropriate use of the term in the context of Ms. Carperter's meaning. Some might say that it's a projection as the actual story seems to lead to the canard that somehow ACORN methods will lead to voter fraud, or that Sen. Obama's sub-contracting of an off-shoot of ACORN was a deliberate attempt to engage in voter fraud. I tend to agree with the NY Times editorial today that the real tradegy is the obstacles politicians have placed on willing and eligible voters in getting registered and the continuing practice of caging the vote. However if there is another meaning of canard that is applicable to her comments I would

With all due respect to Amanda, TownHall is the absolute worst website for political info. . . and I'm a conservative. When I read it, it feels as if it's being written by a bunch of teenagers or something. Conservatives in 2008 just have a plain lack of ideas for the future.
Also, conservatives in America are objectively the most self-righteous people on earth at the moment. The "regular folks" at Republican rallies seem to pride themselves on being dumb and ignorant. But hey, they remain loyal right?
We conservatives need some more Buckley, Brooks and George Will and less Palin and TownHall

Amanda Carpenter does not understand marginal tax rates There's no "penalty" for making over $250,000, it's just that each additional dollar earned above that amount is taxed at a higher rate. This is a totally normal and uncontroversial feature of the American tax code. To be clear: even though income beyond $250,000 is taxed at a higher rate, and thus the average effective tax rate on all income inicreases, the rate increases more slowly than income. Joe will always have more after-tax income making $280,000 than $250,000. For that not to be true, effective marginal tax rates would have to be over 100%. Now, that sometimes happens at the very bottom of the income spectrum, where poorly-designed welfare programs can mean that a family is better off earning less and qualifying for more benefits, but it's never been true at the top.

Amanda said I should apologize to WSJ's Kimberley Strassel. I will not. She is a standard conservative hack peddling misleading statistics. Strassel writes: "Mr. Obama will give 95% of American working families a tax cut, even though 40% of Americans today don't pay income taxes! How can our star enact such mathemagic? How can he "cut" zero? Abracadabra! It's called a 'refundable tax credit.' It involves the federal government taking money from those who do pay taxes, and writing checks to those who don't." First, earning too little for income taxes is not the same as not paying any federal taxes. As Atlanta Journal Constitution's Jay Bookman explains, that doesn't take into account the regressive, flat 15.3% payroll tax that only applies to income below $102,000, and is not strictly diverted to Social Security and Medicare trust funds, but goes into the same general funds pool as income taxes. Second, Obama proposes specific "refundable tax credits" -- meaning they can result in tax refunds if you don't end up owing income tax -- for specific instances, not wholesale for every single person who doesn't owe income taxes. As the McCain campaign laid out to ABC: those credits are "(1) a 'make-work-pay' credit of up to

I should add that Amanda was also inaccurate in saying the Obama's refundable tax credits amount to a blanket "entitlement" when they are tax credits for specific actions.

AC is terminally stupid. She's at the Sarah Palin level. Get rid of her. I can't listen to anyone who is this stupid. Just an example. First, she grants the hypothesis that under Obama's income tax proposals, and as calculated by Dean Baker, the marginal tax rate on a small business income of between $250,000 and $280,000 increases by less than 3%! Even an additional $30,000 of income results in a maximum additional tax of $900. Three percent! She thinks this increase is excessive. On what planet? I'm a liberal, and I wonder if the proposed increase in the marginal tax rate at this level of income is really this low, but what I really don't believe is that anyone could think that such an increase in the marginal rate is too high, that it represents a punitive rate, or that anyone would be moved to work less because of such an increased tax rate. I've never heard anything so stupid in my life. Please get rid of her. She's terrible. I believe in free speech, but not for terminally stupid people on bloggingheads. [I have edited this post, because, when I wrote it, I wasn't thinking that the marginal rate on this hypothetical small business owner with an additional $30,000 in net income was increasing from 31% to 34%, or something like that. It is embarrassing to admit that I wrote this post under a misapprehension, which I later myself realized. Nevertheless, I don't see how an additional 3% changes anyone's behavior, almost regardless of the prior marginal rate. If the marginal rate went from 90% to 93%, no one's behavior would change. And I've heard AC before. She is insufferable and stupid. I stick with that characterization.][/i]

Just an aside, I believe that both Milton Friedman and Richard Nixon (the latter less surprisingly) supported negative income taxes at times. It's not a radical idea. It seems radical to the terminally stupid.

Not to mention conservative bloggingheads Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam

Amanda Carpenter seems to have a hard time thinking THROUGH logical arguments. On numerous occasions Bill pointed out how McCain's actions are similar Obama's, but she dismisses the logic by saying "it's just different" (speaking at ACORN, the value of tax rebates). Either McCain and Obama are both wrong or they are both are correct. I am sorry for being mean, but Amanda doesn't seem very bright or intellectually honest. She's obviously very driven and has been able to get a gig on Townhall and Bloggingheads (and a little googling shows that she's appeared on Fox News), but it's easy to see that she has a hard time processing points that go against her world view. I can see her argue value of small government and in the same breath support Bush's expansion of government. Not because she understands the differences between philosophic ideals and the reality of politics... but because she seems like someone who can easily reconcile her views to whatever works at the moment. Amanda... debating is more than just about making your point. It's about honestly sharing ideas. Concede some points and make others. I recommend that

I wonder if Bill realizes when he quoted them that his reaction to WSJ's Kimberley Strassel is the same many people have for feministe and the other fem-blogs.
So when will be a policy debate on the definition "health of the mother" exception and what it entails occur?
Or will it be shut down when the pro-abortion types such as NARAL and feministe scream that the people calling for the policy debate are misogynists. As for Government cuts, I am sure Obama will use the Clinton era practice (peace dividend) of the cutting Defense spending and claim to be reducing the size of Government.

Full disclosure: I'm a neolib. I think the Reagan tax cuts were the right thing to do (speaking generally), as were the HW and Clinton increases, while the W cuts were wrong. I think the first Iraq War was justified and the second wasn't. OK, now that you know where I come from. I thought she was an absolute GOP hack. I realize that success dumbs down a political party and the conservatism is a coherent and compelling ideology. The difference between hacks and wonks is that wonks are smarter than the party and hacks are every bit as stupid. I'm not a huge fan of Scher, but... One of the problems I have with Republicanism is that it has divorced taxes and spending. Taxes become, not how we pay for government, but punishment. Because they see taxes as punishment, they assume that economic success is seen as a bad thing. It is conservatism for idiots. For the record, I freely confess that there is liberalism for idiots and plenty of idiots who believe it. I'm not knocking genuine conservatism here but bloggingheads for subjecting us to the idiot's version of the ideology.

Quoting PaulL: As for Government cuts, I am sure Obama will use the Clinton era practice (peace dividend) of the cutting Defense spending and claim to be reducing the size of Government.

Wouldn't that be extremely prudent? Or am I missing something.

Quoting Bill Scher: Amanda said I should apologize to WSJ's Kimberley Strassel. I will not. She is a standard conservative hack peddling misleading statistics.
First, earning too little for income taxes is not the same as not paying any federal taxes. As Atlanta Journal Constitution's Jay Bookman explains, that doesn't take into account the regressive, flat 15.3% payroll tax that only applies to income below $102,000, and is not strictly diverted to Social Security and Medicare trust funds, but goes into the same general funds pool as income taxes.
...
Sorry Amanda, no apologies from me.

So Bill is admitting that the Al Gore's Social Security lockbox and the statement that Social Security is a retirement plan are complete BS.
Is the spin now , Obama is not a liar. Al Gore was. Other victim under the bus.

Quoting DoctorMoney: Wouldn't that be extremely prudent? Or am I missing something.

Other than providing Defense is stated in the Constitution as a primary role of the Government.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It is not "provide the general Welfare"

Quoting kidneystones: thprop writes...[...]

Many thanks! It's late. You've grabbed right onto the nub of the issue. Not a single corroborating witness, but let's make sure we get the government agency right. Twenty witnesses interviewed. Nobody heard anything.

Sooo... the video is a fake? This is the end of what I think is a thread concerning a non-issue for me so.....bu bye!

It sounds like Amanda doesn't want Joe the Plumber to contribute to the support our troops in Iraq. I guess Amanda doesn't want to support our troops with our tax money either. I guess that's why she supports McCain: so we can let future generations pay for the cost of our troops and our wars, because Americans shouldn't have to pay taxes.

By Amanda Carpenter's own standards she is a liar. Everyone in America pays taxes in some form. Sales tax, state tax, property tax, taxes on cable and phones. Or is she trying to say that 30% of us are homeless paupers.

Wow. I'm truly shocked out much of an intellectual lightweight this woman is. Since when is "It's just different... it's different," a legitimate response to an important question about the differences in tax plans between BO and JM? This is sad. How did she get on bloggingheads?

It sounds like Amanda thinks Joe the Plumber should not support our troops with his tax money. It sounds like Amanda doesn't want to pay taxes to support our troops. I guess that's why she supports McCain: Because McCain doesn't think Americans should have to pay taxes to support our troops.
I guess Amanda believes future generations should explain to our creditors that Americans shouldn't have to pay for our troops or our wars.
$900 our of $280,000 is apparently too much to pay to support our troops.

Quoting PaulL: So Bill is admitting that the Al Gore's Social Security lockbox and the statement that Social Security is a retirement plan are complete BS.
Is the spin now , Obama is not a liar. Al Gore was. Other victim under the bus.

The Stupid. It burns. Gore was proposing a lockbox for Social Security and Medicare so payroll taxes would no longer be used for general purposes. But he lost, and there is no lockbox today. Payroll taxes -- regressive taxes that fall on the middle-class and low-income families, even those who don't pay income taxes -- help fund regular government operations. That's just a fact. Whether having a lockbox is a good idea for the long-term health of Social Security and Medicare is a completely separate matter.

Cutting defense would be beyond prudent. The United States has no peer rivals. Of course, we very well may in 20 years. The key to improving the United States' position then isn't a bigger military now, it's a stronger economy and less debt. Not breaking the bank on useless military technology would be useful in strengthening America's long-term position. As far as smaller wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, those don't require the kind of technology we're throwing money at. Of course, the United States' long term position would also be improved by avoiding stupid wars of choice...

Bill is completely right that McCain's flat $5000 heath care tax credit is a hand-out just like Obama's "tax cuts" are hand-outs. Which is exactly why conservatives are not very excited about McCain. But saying "McCain's plan is also dishonest" is not a defense of the rampant dishonesty of the Obama tax plan. Does anybody honestly have any doubt which candidate is going to raise taxes more, raise government spending more, and offer more hand-outs?

Quoting Bill Scher: The Stupid. It burns.

Gore was proposing a lockbox for Social Security and Medicare so payroll taxes would no longer be used for general purposes. But he lost, and there is no lockbox today. Social Security -- regressive taxes that fall on the middle-class and low-income families, even those who don't pay income taxes -- help fund regular government operations. That's just a fact.
The middle-class and low-income families pay
Whether having a lockbox is a good idea for the long-term health of Social Security and Medicare is a completely separate matter.

That is viewing Social Security as a Government welfare program opposed to a retirement savings plan that it is sold to the public as. If it is not a retirement plan why do I get statements every year of what benefits I will collect if/when I retire? The middle-class and low-income families pay the most into Social Security because they are getting the benefits from the Social Security as a retirement savings plan. I hope that progressives/Democrats continue working towards removing the income cap and/or means testing the benefits of Social Security to help dispel the

Amanda Carpenter is spewing disingenuous talking points and sounds like she should be an MSM talking screamer. I truly miss Conn. Edit: I owe AC a bit of an apology as she starts to make more sense past the halfway point. Edit 2: I should have trusted my first impression. Conn is capable of forming convincing arguments and in my view tends to shade Bill in most of their dvlogs. Amanda seems to lack any interest in drilling into the complexity of things and leaves Bill the winner by default.

I am wondering why Amanda Carpenter was so snippy throughout this diavlog. Otherwise an interesting discussion. Thanks.

Seeing Amanda Carpenter on Bloggingheads reminded me how different the discussions on this site usually are from the talking head shout-offs you see on TV. I'm sure Ms Carpenter is a nice person, but she seemed more interested in "winning" rather than openly and honestly exploring the issues at hand. This is nothing to do with her politics, we just need more William F. Buckley and less Bill O'Reilly.

I suppose I should thank Amanda Carpenter for giving me a reason to finally register on this site. In any case, to the blogginheads powers that be -- please, please, please find a conservative who can think her way out of a paper bag. The joy of blogginheads is that it usually provides civilized conversation between two people who (a) have something to say and (b) are willing to engage in dialogue rather than pure polemic. If I wanted the sort of noise emitting from AC, I'd tune in talk radio. Gack. Plenty of others have said the same, but please. And to Republicans: I'm looking to be a Republican again if the party can ever get its act together. But one place to start would be to distinguish between a case against excessive taxation and the shrill claim that taxes are per se 'punishment'. I grow nostalgic for the Republican party that once valued intelligence and thoughtfulness as opposed to one that thinks it can win by belligerent delivery of talking points that are an insult to anyone who capable of rational thought.

Recent history suggests the Republicans will. Just because they say they won't doesn't mean they won't. Sadly, it isn't about how big government will get, it's about whether you are going to benefit from the money they will throw around. I live in Southern California and Reagan is revered here not because he brought down the USSR but because he brought home the bacon.

I like Bill, but I can’t listen to Amanda. Once she started (early on) talking about the horror of wealth redistribution, I remembered how repulsive I found her in her prior appearance where she had made the same appalling noises as she does here. My money is mine! so eff you! kinda thing. Mine! Mine! Mine!
She is sooo dumb.
It’s an insult to the other diavloggers and the whole community to waste time on her. She’s a paper cut-out caricature of a ‘Conservative’.
Ugh and aagh.
The question remains; in which circle of Hell does she belong? It has to accommodate incredible stupidity, abrasive, angry, abusive whining, and corruption of rational processes beyond recognition.
One is tempted to draw the conclusion that anything she says is far more likely to be wretchedly, abjectly ill-begotten drivel (=Wrong!) than anything even remotely useful or accurate. From Amanda Carpenter, Good Lord, deliver us.

i think the funniest thing about this session of bh is how amanda and bill (but especially amanda) are going ape-shit at each other for the vast majority of it and then abruptly end on a very congenial note making sure to be very gracious to each other for about 15 seconds. it's as if they're trying to pretend that they've had an enlightened--but spirited--discussion such as i've become accustomed to from bhtv and not the typical shouting match which we're used to from the average talking head. it's silly. if you've been contemptuously shouting someone down for a half hour be consistent and say, "you're an idiot! bye."

Quoting pink maggie: i think the funniest thing about this session of bh is how amanda and bill (but especially amanda) are going ape-shit at each other for the vast majority of it and then abruptly end on a very congenial note making sure to be very gracious to each other for about 15 seconds. it's as if they're trying to pretend that they've had an enlightened--but spirited--discussion such as i've become accustomed to from bhtv and not the typical shouting match which we're used to from the average talking head. it's silly. if you've been contemptuously shouting someone down for a half hour be consistent and say, "you're an idiot! bye."

Perhaps it's a case of last second repentance...

also, her disingenuousness is staggering. one small example: when she talks about how the raising of the acorn "voter fraud" is not a mccain camp tactic you're obviously witnessing hackery of the purest variety. on the other hand, imagine that a person--who's relatively informed--actually believed this. in that instance, you'd have a person who is completely impervious to persuasion or logic. in which case, you have someone who really doesn't believe anything since beliefs are not formed the basis of persuasion and logic. there's a certain sort of nihilism to such a person.

Thank you , Amanda, for giving Bill Scher the opportunity to demonstrate that he has the patience of Job!

Quoting kidneystones: handle smears...[...]

No wonder you're beating a quick retreat. You don't identify the specific place in the purported threat is uttered. After four listens I'll argue that there is no evidence on that video to support your outrageous smear. More manufactured outrage.

I've stepped-up and owned the poorly-crafted post earlier. I have absolutely no expectation you or any of the other bots will even attempt the same level of honesty and accountability.

Terror comes in many forms: Bush publicly questioned the patriotism of any who questioned his judgment and his policies.

Critics are not 'inventing' or 'discovering' the ties binding the Ayers/Obama/Rezko/Wright Gang of Four together. You and the rest of the bots have persistently accused every critic of the Chosen One of racism, hate, or bigotry to keep the spotlight off your own candidate's long history with domestic terrorists, corrupt financiers, and racist hate-mongers.

I fully expect you and your ilk to bring even more shame upon yourselves in the weeks and months to come.

Pond scum.

I'll take that as a yes, and I reiterate that I see it as a non issue. If I could write anything in this post that might have

Oh yea, I just noticed the unique signature at the end of your post, and I feel that even though your anger seems a little extreme, I think you are being a little hard on yourself.

Amanda Carpenter was not enjoyable to watch in this context. Sure, Bill, said some things that needed rejoinders, but she far overplayed it for my taste. If I wanted those sorts of arguments, I'd consume them in the much more pleasant medium of text.

First, earning too little for income taxes is not the same as not paying any federal taxes. As Atlanta Journal Constitution's Jay Bookman explains, that doesn't take into account the regressive, flat 15.3% payroll tax that only applies to income below $102,000, and is not strictly diverted to Social Security and Medicare trust funds, but goes into the same general funds pool as income taxes.

To be clear, Bill, are you disputing the WSJ writer's assertion that 40% of Americans don't pay federal income taxes? If Obama is only proposing cuts in the federal income tax, which was my understanding, I do not see how he can truly cut the taxes of those not paying the tax being cut. The purpose of your invocation of the payroll tax is not immediately clear. Is Obama proposing cutting the payroll tax? (If so, he's suddenly in contention for my vote again.) Or is your point that Obama will expand earned income tax credits, and that because money is fungible, this is much like a cutting the amount of payroll taxes paid by the affected workers? If that last possibility is indeed your point, I disagree with your characterization, but

Vicious. Dingalink

Quoting jimM47: To be clear, Bill, are you disputing the WSJ writer's assertion that 40% of Americans don't pay federal income taxes? If Obama is only proposing cuts in the federal income tax, which was my understanding, I do not see how he can truly cut the taxes of those not paying the tax being cut.

The purpose of your invocation of the payroll tax is not immediately clear. Is Obama proposing cutting the payroll tax? (If so, he's suddenly in contention for my vote again.) Or is your point that Obama will expand earned income tax credits, and that because money is fungible, this is much like a cutting the amount of payroll taxes paid by the affected workers?

If that last possibility is indeed your point, I disagree with your characterization, but I concede that the point is minor, and mainly semantic, since the people Obama is addressing with the 95% comment are not likely to actively differentiate between the flavors of tax they are paying.

On the other hand, if that is your point, then it is a murky enough one that I do not think it at all justifies the seemingly-reflexive scorn you showed to

jimM47, what I am disputing is Kimberley Strassel's completely false assertion that Obama's tax plan "involves the federal government taking money from those who do pay taxes, and writing checks to those who don't." Obama's $1000 "Making Work Pay" refundable tax credit -- the one Obama is referring to when he talks about "95 percent of workers and their families" getting a tax cut -- is only for workers and their families, meaning any household receiving it at least currently pays payroll taxes. No one would receive it who wasn't paying federal taxes in some form. Conservatives usually only mislead by subtly implying that not paying income taxes means not paying any taxes, and omitting the full truth. Strassel flat out lies.

Amanda is a lovely person. But the whiff of desperation that is evident in this diavlog stemming from the knowledge that your side is, in all probability, going to get a whupping from the electorate come November is not pretty to look at. I wonder if this is the same thing conservatives saw in the eyes of liberals a few years ago when the positions were reversed. The period is a little vague for me. I was to involved in the muck on the liberal side to have clear memory.
Newdome

Have only watched the Acorn snippet so far, but I can tell by vitriol here that she probably did quite well in the rest. Way to go Amanda...when you get them whining for Conn you were hitting the right buttons. Oh and, BTW, dismissing the ACORN issue demonstrates once again how pathetic the left is.

Sorry, not reading your insane tripe anymore, I tried to help.

Quoting Bill Scher: jimM47, what I am disputing is Kimberley Strassel's completely false assertion that Obama's tax plan "involves the federal government taking money from those who do pay taxes, and writing checks to those who don't."

A fair enough point. I glazed over both Carpenter and Strassel's lack of an explicit qualifier differentiating between income taxes and all taxes, assuming that it was implicit. But you are right that this qualifier cannot simply be assumed, and without it, the statement is incorrect and will mislead those who do not assume it. ***** Though, having now considered things in that light, if I may attempt to rescue some small part of the point Amanda Carpenter failed to make: I think there is a real difference between a tax cut, as I understand that term, and a tax credit. When I hear the words tax cut, what I think is a decrease in the marginal rate of taxation that applies to me, and though this may color me as uninformed, previously when I heard Obama say that I would be getting a tax cut, that's what I had thought he meant. That he does not mean this, and instead means a tax credit, does disappoint me, and had I been

Fur, once again, correctly predicts a thumping just by virtue of the maliciousness of the lefty commenters here. Another barometer is probably the number of times Scher shows up after the fact hoping to find some sort of redemption.... I also could have watched this one with the sound off and made the same veracious vaticination just by virtue of the wiggling, bouncing, and bobbing Bill did in his chair. Amanda once again rocks Bloggingheads. I guess the reason some of you feel the need to insult her is that you (much like Bill) are unable to counter her positions with substantive arguments... so you lash out in an attempt to deflect. (That situation seems eerily familiar) This also makes my use of the word "pathetic", in my earlier post, prophetic. To his credit, Bill does not "lash out", but deflect??? Ohhhh Yeahhh! In any case, Do you know that feeling of anxiety when you realize you are on the wrong side of a position but are compelled to defend it? (You know, like many of you felt along with Bill during this vlog) Well, you lefties here are in for at least 4 years of it

A very un-BHTV performance from Amanda - too combative and too many cheap, shallow attacks. The thing I love about BHTV is that most of the blogging heads make an effort to see it from the other person's side.

Fraudulent arguments on ACORN. The law specifies that ACORN must submit every single registration request, even they know it's fraudulent. They have the ability to flag them as possibly, probably, or definitely fraudulent. There's no instance of these fraudulent attempts ever resulting in someone trying to actually vote after registering as Troy Aikman or Mickey Mouse. Amanda is either: 1) ignorant
2) manipulatively lying In either case she's below the standards of BHTV

"Why won't you address those charges, Bill?" He just did, you stupid crook. He just pointed out that federal law FORCES them to submit all the forms. Didn't you hear it? Jesus. This is unacceptable.

Quoting timba: "Why won't you address those charges, Bill?"

He just did, you stupid crook. He just pointed out that federal law FORCES them to submit all the forms. Didn't you hear it? Jesus. This is unacceptable.

The point is that you and yours should be just as upset about this organization making a mockery of the registration process whether by incompetence, problematic methodologies, or fraud, as anyone. You're pointing to the law requiring the submission of all registrations is not an argument against trying to get them to clean up their act. How simple does it need to be painted for you? Ms. Carpenter tried to explain that multiple times...
"Didn't you hear it?" If not then you probably also did not understand the other two parts. It sure would be nice to know how much money ACORN receives from the federal government AND we would like Obama to expand on the LIE he told during the last debate and come clean about ALL his ACORN dealings (i.e. how much money did his campaign give them, what training did he provide them, etc. etc)

didn't read it, just so ya know... I mean what I write and I am done with your ravings.

Quoting handle: didn't read it, just so ya know... I mean what I write and I am done with your ravings.

Run away ... run away...

I am not going to let stand the idea that vitriol directed at AC results from defects in the character of leftists. No, the defects are entirely in the tone and analytical intelligence of AC. I have stated that I am a liberal, and I have recently complained about the tone and lack of preparation of Jane Hamsher. I have in the past directed harsh criticism the way of James Pinkerton and Megan McCardle, but that criticism was not nearly as harsh as the criticism I am directing at AC. I've seen AC's act now twice, and she is neither particularly well informed, nor particularly smart. She is an exceedingly shrill and partisan mediocrity, a perfect analogue in the intellectual blogosphere for Sarah Palin, now rejected as incompetent to be vice president by much, if not most of the Republican intellectual MSM establishment. I think we should take the $900 in additional taxes that Joe the plumber will not be paying, since he's not a plumber and will be making nowhere near $250,000 in his nonexistent subchapter S corporation, and give that money to AC, with the proviso that she uses $200 to get the hell out of Dodge and

Quoting ledocs: I am not going to let stand the idea that vitriol directed at AC results from defects in the character of leftists. No, the defects are entirely in the tone and analytical intelligence of AC.

...

You offer NOTHING here of substance. Someone with your obviously superior analytical intelligence I would think could have come up with at least one example other that your $900 insult. Unfortunately that further shows your inability to understand that that particular situation is not about the $900 at all but about the Marxist sounding statement about spreading the wealth around. Instead leftists, like yourself, choose to beat up people like Joe and Amanda for having the audacity to question "The One". That does kind of sound like a character defect. Ayn Rand's first book "We the Living" would be a good read for you. I also note that short of Pinkerton you seem to have the most trouble dealing with strong and smart women..."what would your Mother have to say about that ...Billy?"

#1. She totally glosses over the videos from Ohio and Scranton, PA where the crowd was openly racist and the one guy was holding a monkey doll and calling it little hussein. You know she knew what Bill was talking about and kept harping on the secret service not confirming the kill him charge. She's so embarrased to be associated with those people at the rally she's got selective amnesia. #2. She says that most people wouldn't know how much profit a business that they are considering buying is making? It makes you wonder how we got in such economic trouble with such sharp thinking from the right. That statment should disqualify her from writing anything more challenging than a coloring book.

Quoting Larry Bird: #1. She totally glosses over the videos from Ohio and Scranton, PA where the crowd was openly racist and the one guy was holding a monkey doll and calling it little hussein. You know she knew what Bill was talking about and kept harping on the secret service not confirming the kill him charge. She's so embarrased to be associated with those people at the rally she's got selective amnesia.

#2. She says that most people wouldn't know how much profit a business that they are considering buying is making? It makes you wonder how we got in such economic trouble with such sharp thinking from the right. That statment should disqualify her from writing anything more challenging than a coloring book.

I have read that the real Larry Bird was about as smart as a box of rocks so some of this makes sense. #1 First, let me say that this whole subject is pretty much irrelevant bordering on silly. McCain has no more ability to stop anyone who wants to yell anything at his rallys than Obama does. Or are we to blame the

Yeah. Apparently ACORN's fraud doesn't matter, but a vast conspiracy by the GOP unearthed by one shady "investigator" who has connections to the Democratic Party and Hugo Chavez and other leftists equals Bush is a fascist warmongering big who stole an election.

Quoting Whatfur: I have read that the real Larry Bird was about as smart as a box of rocks so some of this makes sense.

#1 First, let me say that this whole subject is pretty much irrelevant bordering on silly. McCain has no more ability to stop anyone who wants to yell anything at his rallys than Obama does. Or are we to blame the Obama campaign for the Palin is a CU*T T-shirt? Amanda made the ONLY real point, the ONLY thing in the candidates control and that was for Obama to use this unsubstantiated story to make points in the debate was rather depraved.

#2 Few people buy businesses they plan to work to only do as well as the person they are buying it from. I would have thought it would go without saying, but obviously one has looked at the books of a company one is looking to buy but seldom does the purchaser plan to be constrained by them. I have been around a number of start-ups and NOT ONE didn't think they were going to make it big or get bigger. Few may achieve it but

Quoting Larry Bird: I think you and I know that the candidates set the tone for its supporters and with the Hussein and real American comments its pretty obvious why they have people holding monkey stuffed animals outside of the Mccain rallys. If thats the side you want to be on good for you.

That is such a stupid retort. Come on Larry ...you can do better than that. If anything McCain has stifled his supporters (crackpot and otherwise). One rock short of a full box, eh? Do you think it difficult to find a nutty lefty to falsely associate with you?

Quoting Larry Bird: Most prospective business owners would know the least they could stand to make if they were doing their due dilligence correct? This is a labor job not an internet start up so unfortuantly most owners are concerned with just making enough to keep their doors open. I don't know how it works in the "plummer" start up world which I assume is the fast track to wealth via fruit sales but in the mechanical contractor world that I live in the "plumbers" I know can easily figure out what

Quoting Nate K: Wow. I'm truly shocked out much of an intellectual lightweight this woman is. Since when is "It's just different... it's different," a legitimate response to an important question about the differences in tax plans between BO and JM?

Possibly right after Ace o’ Spades was named CPAC Blogger of the Year? For example:

I know what the liberals are asking: Why is [Spitzer] such a big deal, and Sen. David Vitter’s previous experience with call girls isn’t?

Shut up, that’s why.

Quoting BeachFrontView: With all due respect to Amanda, TownHall is the absolute worst website for political info. . . and I'm a conservative. When I read it, it feels as if it's being written by a bunch of teenagers or something.

What do you recommend (online) for good conservative thought? Currently, I read Sullivan daily (arguable, I know, but he still claims the label), Douthat, Larison, Poulos, and The American Scene fairly often, and look at Frum, Derbyshire, and Will occasionally.

Quoting bjkeefe: What do you recommend (online) for good conservative thought?

Currently, I read Sullivan daily (arguable, I know, but he still claims the label), Douthat, Larison, Poulos, and The American Scene fairly often, and look at Frum, Derbyshire, and Will occasionally.

Actually BFV's view is a little short-sighted. Sure there are marginally skilled people writing columns at Townhall but there are dozens of conservative contributers there and many are fantastic. Some you have seen here... Hugh Hewitt, Matt Lewis, Amanda Carpenter and BHs should tap them for more before TH decides to start their own THHeads. Although I am betting he might be a kindred spirit for you, my first suggestion is to stop reading Sullivan, because if you think you are getting a conservative take there, you are mistaken. To have him top your list tells me that your request might be a bit disingenuous. The others you list are good but ....hmmm...soft. NR "The Corner" is great and you will find a number of "Heads" there speaking to eachother and about eachother. If you want red meat, go to LGF and Hotair. But I suggest you not get involved in discussions there as you would find yourself stripped naked, red-assed, and left in a public place without cab

Quoting Whatfur: Run away ... run away...

So now you are aligning yourself with anyone who can cut and paste?
Since I've dropped about 512 hints that this isn't an adversarial website, I'm going to spell it out for you, the diavlogs aren't political cage matches, this isn't fox news, and you ain't a pimple on Bill O'Rielly's ass. But as you know, when you cross the line, I love it. Here's some ignorant posts from Whatfur who thinks this is an "us vs. them" debate site:

Quoting Whatfur: I think its not really Mr. Goldberg, but most every conservative that Bloggingheads puts up here. If they are convincing and provide well-conceived arguments, they become even more of an enemy. Go back to the recent Amanda Carpenter vlog. In the same vain you note, I read comments before watching and based on their "vague rants" and use of the word "idiotic
I just knew that Ms. Carpenter made a good showing. When I first discovered bloggingheads...actually maybe my first post...I did so in defense of Conn Carroll as the posters here were painting him as some foaming at the mouth reprobate. Even then I called their bluff asking for a digilink example of what they were describing and...surprise...besides

BTW your guy is melting down.
Kinda like you. Will you still be here when the humiliation sets in? Or are you going to do the "run away" thing you mentioned, like you did last month?

Quoting handle: BTW your guy is melting down.

More meltdowns! More! Video for one of the moments here.

Quoting bjkeefe: Video for one of the moments here.

OMG, that is side-splittingly funny. God. That look on Cindy's face as McCain drives into his rhetorical ditch is just priceless.

Quoting TwinSwords: OMG, that is side-splittingly funny. God. That look on Cindy's face as McCain drives into his rhetorical ditch is just priceless.

Check this out
I'm cutting him some slack, he must be exhausted from having to babysit his soul, er, I mean running mate, on top of his own engagements..
No wonder Whatfur is resorting to playground taunts... waiting for your big comeback, Fur. Some suggestions based on your last post:
cry baby! cry!
I know you are but what am I?

Quoting handle: Check this out
I'm cutting him some slack, he must be exhausted from having to babysit his soul, er, I mean running mate, on top of his own engagements..
No wonder Whatfur is resorting to playground taunts... waiting for your big comeback, Fur. Some suggestions based on your last post:
cry baby! cry!
I know you are but what am I?

No really, run way, run away. For a group with the righteous wind at your back...Y'all seem a bit nervous. Speaking of...seen the IBD poll today? Also for a real kick, go check out Drudge and then come back and we can talk meltdown.

Quoting Whatfur: No really, run way, run away.

For a group with the righteous wind at your back...Y'all seem a bit nervous. Speaking of...seen the IBD poll today?

Also for a real kick, go check out Drudge and then come back and we can talk meltdown.

Wow, good one! I didn't think a big swaggering cowpoke like you watched Oprah! y'all are gettin' soft on us. Unless you meant some other wingnut spew on that site (thanks for the link).
I'm not really in the group.. oh yea I forgot... anyone left of Hitler is a namby pamby tinhorn elitist lefty to you. Hell, I haven't kissed a polar bear all day!
Weeel see who's nervous, and who ain't, ya' big blowhard!

Hey, handle, seen the IBD poll today?

Quoting bjkeefe: Hey, handle, seen the IBD poll today?

Ouch! I think we are about to hear what an "echo chamber" this is and how none of the non-wingnut posts contain any "substance".

Quoting handle: Ouch! I think we are about to hear what an "echo chamber" this is and how none of the non-wingnut posts contain any "substance".

In that case, we might as well add a little back-patting! No matter how much he tries to deny it, he's still McSame: "Take a good look around, Angry Johnny, 'cause this is the last time you're going to see this place."

Quoting PaulL: Other than providing Defense is stated in the Constitution as a primary role of the Government.

It is not "provide the general Welfare"

My question about what is prudent got answered with fringe constitutional theory! Seems like a pretty drastic change of topic. Should I not be trusting the Supreme Court on this subject? Is it your view that the legal establishment has been infiltrated by radicals?