The Post of the Day is a hard jab at Obamapocalypsers
Dave Matthews 10 | Wikimedia Commons
Note from Dan: This fine rant from the Sunday column thread is directed at the regular “Frank,” and his phony, selective outrage at Obama for allowing FICA taxes to rise back to their 2010 level this month after a temporary, 2-year cut that was never intended to be permanent. It’s by another regular, J.M. White.
“Frank: It’s your mentality and those like you that have driven people like me away from the Republican Party in droves. Your willingness to continue a convoluted stream of the illogical reeks of insanity. You like to point out that liberals are feeding at the trough of their masters, yet you fail to see the irony of the fallow feed-lot in which you are imprisoned. The horn sounds and you take your place on the feeding line. You feast on that poison with an almost religious fervor and then rush out to attempt to regurgitate it to people who already know it’s rancid, bitter taste and want nothing to do with it.
Anyone with common sense knew from the beginning that the FICA reduction was temporary. It was an idiotic idea in the first place and we all got duped by our respective representatives, both (R) and (D). We’ve known for years that Social Security was in trouble. Again, it’s more of this untenable BS of taking specifically allocated funds into the general fund so they can be raped and pillaged for pet projects.
The bunch of geniuses that we all hired decided the next best course of action was to reduce the specifically acquired funds on top of writing IOUs to cover money they’ve been borrowing. If the politicians had kept their filthy hands off of the Social Security Administration’s (read: our) money in the first place, it could’ve remained solvent indefinitely. After all, why fund the world’s most expensive military from just one pot?
You can also think of it this way: We were refusing to fix a roof leak in order to spend our money on fancy electronics. In fact, we were tearing off additional shingles and selling them so we could get even more stuff. Well, the inevitable monsoonal rains came and, surprise of all surprises, the roof fell in. At least we still have our fancy electronics, right? Except that the rains haven’t stopped and electronics don’t work too well when submerged. Now, we’ve wised up enough to throw a tarp over the hole but we still need a roofer. For the time being, we’re starting to dry out.
I’m sorry that you were too blinded by partisanship to understand the long-term implications (and always-temporary status) of the FICA reduction. The liberals didn’t do that to you; that’s a self-inflicted wound.
Meanwhile, while you were all shouting at and over each other about the coming Obamapocalypse instead of questioning the motives of your own masters, there were many of us who jumped from your doomed ship and paddled back to port. The lifeboats are still being lowered, man… Only fools and the foolishly loyal will ride that vessel to the bottom, and ride it they will. Quit listening to the band play on and get in the dinghy before it’s too late.”
January 15, 2013 - 11:00 AM
hey JM,
Ok. I see that I got your attention. Good. And, you seem to be a bit riled up on this cold, rainy day. Now, listen up, ’cause it’s really quite simple, JM.
During the entirety of obama’s 2012 campaign, he shouted ad nauseum (which means, over and over and over and over, some more…) about “not balancing the federal budget on the backs of the middle class and working poor”. obama preached to “only increase the tax-rates on the rich”. “The poor and middle class will NOT see their taxes increased”!
You know it, and I know it.
We also both knew that FICA was going up. And, we know that obama’s preaching during his campaign that “taxes were not going to increase on the middle-class and the working poor”, was an out-right lie….
…as do now the low-information voters who have noticed (since they began getting their paychecks in 2013) that their take-home pay is $25-$85 LESS per month than it was during obama’s 2012 campaign, and on the day they voted for him. All the while, hearing in their heads obama shouting, “I will NOT allow taxes to go up on low and middle-income workers…”
And the band plays on with Maestro Frank in the lead.
@1
Why is the rebuttal always far better than the posts-of-the-day by leftwingers? It happens over and over and over.
Hey Frank your pal Romney made that same claim about not raising taxes. The only difference is, under Romney, the FICA tax would still have gone up and you would be happy paying the extra money. You probably would even post something about how it is your civic duty to pay your share. Meanwhile, all of Romney’s friends would be shipping more of their tax savings to offshore accounts.
and, Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain…and, the beat goes on…the beat goes on…
Frank, did someone hire you to get on this blog and drive people insane? If they did, I hope they’re paying you well, because you’re damn good at it!
Thank you, Debbie.
That’s about the nicest thing that anyone’s ever said to me. I hope you have a great day!
He doesn’t drive me insane. He makes me sad, and sometimes, laugh – like where he’s above calling other people “low information voters”.
Frank, FWIW, I have no doubt that you’re an expert in “ad nauseum” (sic) which means, over and over and over and over.
If anyone knows the definition of ad nauseum, it’s Frank.
Bravo, J M White.
Frank,
It’s clear that you don’t know how our government operates. Don’t feel embarrassed about that or anything — it’s a three-branch system and it can be complicated. To help you understand this, here’s a quick-and-dirty civics lesson. Feel free to print this out and use it as a cheat sheet for the future.
1. Legislation originates in Congress. That’s right, Frank. Legislation does not originate in the White House, despite what you think. The president may PROPOSE legislation, but when he does that he has to get a senator or representative to formally introduce it into either or both chambers.
2. A piece of legislation has to pass the House AND the Senate before it goes to the White House for the president’s signing. In most cases, it can originate in either chamber. But a majority of both chambers has to pass THE SAME BILL. If there are even minor differences between similar bills passed by each chamber, it’s no good. In that case, the House and Senate appoint conferees to work out their differences, and then both chambers have to pass the SAME BILL before it goes to the White House.
3. Then, the president may sign or veto the legislation, or take no action. The president may not amend the bill on his desk to his liking.
With regard to the recent increase in FICA taxes, here is what happened.
In 2001 and 2003 a GOP controlled Congress irresponsibly enacted the “Bush tax cuts” and promised they would expire in 2010. Essentially, they gave away an anticipated surplus that could have been used to pay down the national debt. And then they financed two wars (among other things) by borrowing money they didn’t have, largely because of those irresponsible tax cuts.
In 2010 the Obama White House proposed a TEMPORARY reduction in FICA taxes that are deducted from all workers’ paychecks, from 6.2 percent on the first $108k on income to 4.2 percent. CONGRESS wrote this into legislation that extended, for 2 years, the Bush tax cuts. And then CONGRESS (not the White House) passed that bill, and Obama signed it. The FICA reduction was ALWAYS portrayed as TEMPORARY. Until the cows come home, people can debate whether this was wise or not. There’s no shortage of folks who agree with you that it was unwise (such as J.M. White, above). There are also plenty of people who argue it was the smartest move the president could have made, in terms of getting additional stimulus into our flagging economy, given the political realities — too many chicken-hearted Democrats (who had majorities in both the House and Senate at the time, but not a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate) refused to raise INCOME taxes on the rich.
In 2012, as the 2-year Bush tax cuts extension drew closer to its expiration date, the White House and the GOP House of Representatives began negotiations over extending the income tax cuts for earnings below a certain income level. These negotiations broke down because too many House Republicans refused to negotiate AT ALL if ANY tax increases were on the table — even if they only applied to people earning over $1 million. In other words, a GOP Congress in 2001 and 2003 irresponsibly enacted TEMPORARY tax cuts, promising they would expire in 2010, while forgoing an opportunity to pay down the national debt. Then when the expiration of those cuts approached, the GOP insisted on (and the weak Democrats agreed) a 2-year extension of the cuts, and then as the 2012 expiration approached, House Republicans reneged again on the “TEMPORARY” promises they made in 2001, 2003 and 2010.
So the Senate picked up the ball, worked out a bargain that increased income taxes on very wealthy earners, and DID NOT extend the temporary FICA tax reduction. Republicans in both the House and the Senate voted for this bill, and that’s what went to the White House for the president’s signature.
Unfortunately (in political terms) for the Republicans, by 2012 the economy was recovering. It’s still not great but it’s a damn sight better than it was in 2010. This is in large part due to the first round of stimulus under Bush (2008), a second round of stimulus under Obama (2009) and a third round in 2010 (the temporary FICA tax reduction). That recovery helped assure Obama’s re-election and Democratic gains in both the House and the Senate, although the GOP remains in control in the House.
To boil it all down: the GOP reneged on its promises of TEMPORARY tax cuts in 2001, 2003 and 2010. The White House did not renege on its promise of TEMPORARY in terms of the FICA cuts.
And now you’re criticizing Obama for NOT RENEGING on his promise.
I don’t understand that, Frank. You give a pass to the political bastards who reneged on their TEMPORARY tax-cut promises. And then you slam the politician who DIDN’T renege. That’s topsy turvy and tantamount to endorsing politicians who lie and cheat rather than those who stick by their guns.
All of which is a long way of saying: You’re a complete and utter phony, Frank.
Frank,
Are you by any chance from Nashville? (NSFW-language)
Not only did the Republicans renege on the promise to end the 2001 & 2003 tax cuts, they now want to renege on increasing the debt ceiling and paying for the IUOs they put into the SSI Trust Fund to pay for the spending they approved.
If this wasn’t so sad, it might be funny. By the way, is Frank one of these elephants??? Just asking…
http://www.nationalmemo.com/house-republicans-threaten-to-blow-up-the-economy/
“Why is the rebuttal always far better than the posts-of-the-day by leftwingers? It happens over and over and over.”
suzie, you’re just embarrassing yourself with this kind of crap. And you’re highlighting yet again how much Frank needs some sort of support. No that his conjoined twin has disappeared, nobody else on the blog comes to his defense.
I thought it was ignorant to take money away from SS to begin with. There are many ways to get dollars back in the hands of the people without defunding a program that will be broke in the future. Just another example of our brilliant leadership. Disclaimer: I find both parties to be equally offensive on the issue.
Very interesting that Dan schools Frank on how our three part government works, when our Dear Leader obviously believes that just because he was re-elected that he can “bypass” Congress to enact measures on the American people single-handedly. From immigration, to ignoring court decisions on Gulf oil drilling, to gun control, to raising the debt ceiling, Obama apparently believes if Congress or the Courts don’t agree with what he wants, then he will use his “Executive powers” to do it anyway. What happened to the separation of powers to keep a check on run-away government?
Actually, now that I’ve read Dan’s post at #11, I can see that suzie, who is so incredibly good at predictions, was merely thanking Dan in advance for HIS yet-to-be-written, fact-filled rebuttal to Frank’s nonsense-filled mutterings.
Hey dano,
Holy Cow! I owe you a great big “thank you”! I am sooo flattered! Sheesh, you gave me about, like, what?, a gazillion words, dano, and you NEVER rebuted what obama said over and over and over and over again during his 2012 campaign, did you? Nope. You didn’t.
In my opinion, dano, your above post moves you squarely into the category of “most bloviating” lib-opinion journalist. Ever. Congratulations!
MarkE, pop quiz. Which president signed 291 executive orders. No cheating, now.
Or maybe…Obama invented executive orders too!
Once again Frank turns out to be right……..come on over Dan….
“If everybody took an attitude of shared sacrifice, we could solve our deficit and debt problem next week.” – Barack Obama – Aug. 17, 2011
Care to try parsing to whom he was referring when he said “everybody” and “shared”, Frank? Notice the date of that quote – during the campaign. You’re out of gas. You’ve run aground. Elvis has left the building.
Do you remember that annoying kid in school who would come up with some really lame insult or joke and then ceaselessly repeat it for the next two weeks because one other annoying kid laughed at it once? The rest of us wondered, often aloud, when the idiocy would cease. Well, the ones of us who didn’t take great joy in stuffing said kid in a locker, anyway. Please don’t be that kid anymore, Frank.
Reading the mindless drivel you post is chiseling away at my IQ. Do you understand me, Frank? I literally feel dumber after reading your comments. If you actually take pride in that, then I’m afraid you’re beyond hope.
“it’s time we stop, hey what’s that sound, everybody look what’s goin down….”
…which would be the take-home pay of the working-poor and middle-class workers.
What happened to the separation of powers to keep a check on run-away government?
Comment by Mark E — January 15, 2013 @ 1:28 pm
Remember when the Constitution was ignored and abandoned and Obama invaded another sovereign country without a formal declaration of war? Oh wait, that wasn’t Obama.
The truth to your question is that after being picked apart for years, Bush did more to destroy the checks and balances of power than any president in history. Now that the next man in line is using that same power sotto voce, you want to complain about it. Were you crying out about the injustice of it back then, too?
AdNauseamHeyFrank, aren’t you retired? Take it from someone still out in the trenches. This is a non-issue.
Tank you, Suzie.
Can you believe dano’s post at 12:52 p.m.?
Once again, bravo J M White. This is the problem with ceding more power to the executive. It erodes the checks and balances in our system. And it has been going on since the Nixon years, at least.
Suzie,
Oops, I meant, “thanks”, Suzie.
mark e, as posted often times here before, obama is not the first to use “executive privilege”. In fact mark, he has used less than any president since Bush Sr.:
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/06/20/holder-history-presidential-use-executive-privilege
Mark E. might be laboring under the delusion — based on one of those false Interweb email thingies — that Obama has signed more than 1,000 executive orders. So far Obama is on pace to sign about the same number as GWB’s 291. And Ronnie Reagan signed even more, 380 of them. And further back in the 20th century, presidents signed way more of them than they do now.
wow, JM.
I always thought we were responsible for our own dumbness. Now, somehow, I’m responsible for YOUR …dumberness, JM?
Are you sayin’ that “on August 17, 2011 obama informed the working-poor and the middle-class that he was gonna stand aside and let their take-home pay shrink beginning January 1, 2013?”
Is that what you are sayin’ our pres was sayin’ on August 17, 2011?
And, by that singular statement, according to YOU, all working-class and middle-income folks were dully informed by obama THEN that their take-home pay was gonna shrink on January 1, 2013….despite obama’s loud, repeated ad nauseum shouts during his campaign, before and after August 17, that “he would not balance the budget and solve the debt crises on the backs of the working-poor and middle-class?
Seriously, JM? I thought you were smarter than that. I guess it’s that kool-aid…
jogger, really? Dan just trashed frank with a bunch of facts and frank counters with nothing: ”
In my opinion, dano, your above post moves you squarely into the category of “most bloviating” lib-opinion journalist. Ever. Congratulations!”
What is that? A non response if there ever was one, even from this guy…
It’s like they all woke up when Obama was elected and realized things like income tax and executive orders were going on, far less Presidents traveling at Christmas time.
Frank, look up the words temporary and original. The raise in FICA taxes is not a new tax, it’s the same old tax we’ve been paying for years.
Just because you live in a railroad town, doesn’t mean you have to have a one track mind. I think in your case, the train has jumped the track. Time to call for help.
Hey Debbie.
The tax-rate went up. The take home pay went down. That hit’s the working-class and middle-income folks, folks earning $50k or less, pretty darn hard.
“Just because you live in a railroad town, doesn’t mean you have to have a one track mind.”
LMAO.
Debbie, I may steal that one for an upcoming column one of these days.
If the FICA tax rate had never been lowered in the first place, there would not be a difference, Frank. I’m not saying it doesn’t hurt or make a difference in what people have been taking home in the last two years, but that break was ALWAYS meant to be TEMPORARY.
You’re swinging at air, Frank.
Be my guest, Dan!
oh, c’mon Scott Whitaker.
I thought you were better than that. Dano gave no rebuttal to the single point I have been making.
No lib, including you, has yet rebutted the words obama relentlessly spewed from coast-to-coast during his 2012 campaign. In essence, obama said he would raise taxes on the rich, but wouldn’t raise taxes on the working-poor and the middle-class. We heard him say that over, and over, and over, again. You lnow it, and I know it.
Then, surprise! surprise! surprise! The take-home pay of low-income workers and middle-class folks shrunk on January 1, 2013. Happy New Year!.
Yep. Even though obama said that he was only gonna raise taxes on the rich.
So, someone besides me is thinking, hmmm. We’ve been hosed.
Thanks, jogger.
Sadly JM most voters don’t understand the process nor the consequence of laws that are passed.
Not sure I would call it a lack of “common sense” but more that they are busy with their own lives and pay little attention until the effects hit them.
For the most part those who enjoy political debate are better versed in these matters. If you happen to only run in circles of those who have “some” understanding, you are missing input from a vast number of people; interestingly these are mostly the 4 year voters (or non-voters).
In “their” reality, all they see is that they are bringing home less in pay than they were before; don’t know why, don’t care why, just not happy about it.
If the R’s had any political sense they would be hammering this point home now… they should be saying: obama promised not to raise your taxes… look at your paycheck, obama said he would not take away your 2nd amendment rights, look at tomorrow’s suggestions for exec. orders, obama said bush was using a “bank of china” credit card at 9 trillion he is doubling it etc….
Alas I hold little hope for political acumen of the R’s. Too bad for the country.
Dan,
Nice “basic” school on how government operates. Any comment on why the president will not fulfill his lawful duty of submitting a budget by 1st Monday in February? Or why the senate has not passed a budget in years?
Maybe the next “class” might be on the responsibility of congress when a president oversteps his constitutional authority.
Debbie, re: 4:49
You are correct, but keep in mind that the so called “bush tax cuts” were only temporary, and this administration (and congress) did not want them to “go back”. Neither, I might add did any taxpayer.
mike o: What’s the point in the Republicans hammering that point home? It’s not an impeachable offense, the man won his reelection and it would come off as nothing but a bunch of sore losers whining.
IMO, if they’re interested in saving themselves at this point (which it seems not in the least bit that they are), they would show the voting public that they can work with whomever is holding the office of POTUS to maintain a healthy path for this country. They would step up to the plate, tell their constituents that they lost, they received our message loud and clear and improvements are being implemented immediately to restore our faith in the party.
The real problem is that the GOP is three distinct and increasingly disparate parties all trying to jockey for face time under one roof. It’s “The Real World” for politicians and it’s ugly, detrimental to the country and ultimately, a zero sum game for them.
That first paragraph should end with, “Obama can’t run for reelection again, so why do the Republicans still seem to want to campaign against him?”
I chopped off a sentence while editing.
Frank attended Midvale – http://bit.ly/V2VWMf
good points, mike o.
Regarding obama submitting a budget…haha!…i’d like to see if he can craft one which even a lib congress-person would vote for. haha!
not a chance.
They would do that mikeo except that the Republicans were crowing the same message.
Old Frank’s sole purpose here is to stir the pot. I thought redundant posts were going to be trashed? Silly me.
“You are correct, but keep in mind that the so called “bush tax cuts” were only temporary, and this administration (and congress) did not want them to “go back”. Neither, I might add did any taxpayer.“
Comment by mikeO
That part in bold is an absolute statement that is absolutely incorrect, as you ought to know (but probably you already do and you don’t care).
Can you believe dano’s post at 12:52 p.m.?
I’ve seen it before, Frank. He says crazy stuff like “Bush is responsible for raising taxes if the Bush tax cuts are ever eliminated because he didn’t make them permanent”. I thought he was trying to be funny at first. Now I think he believes his nutty posts.
Why don’t you give this guy a call, Frank. I’m passing on my inheritance to you.
Dr. Elijah Williams
CALL- +:209-207-3608
Hello
I am a Diplomat named Dr. Elijah Williams,mandated to deliver your
inheritance to you in your country of residence.The funds total US$5.8
Million and you were made the beneficiary of these funds by a benefactor
whose details will be revealed to you after handing over the funds to you
in accordance with the Agreement I signed with the benefactor when he
enlisted my assistance in delivering the funds to you.I am presently at L.
A. California International Airport here in the United States of America
and before I can deliver the package (funds) to you, you have to reconfirm
the following information so as to ensure that I am dealing with the right
person/1. Full Name/2. Residential Address/3. Age/ Occupation/5. Direct
Telephone Numbers/6. A Copy of Your Identification.
Diplomat Dr. Elijah Williams
L. A. California International Airport,
“You’re swinging at air, Frank.”
Comment by Debbie — January 15, 2013 @ 4:49 pm
And the air is beating him senseless.
J.M. White: The real problem is that the GOP is three distinct and increasingly disparate parties all trying to jockey for face time under one roof. It’s “The Real World” for politicians and it’s ugly, detrimental to the country and ultimately, a zero sum game for them.
I hereby nominate “Pigs (Three Different Ones)” from the Pink Floyd album Animals as this Friday’s drive-time tune. (Come to think of it, if this blog and its inhabitants had a mix tape, most of the album would be on it.) The Republican Party is an Orwellian prophecy, isn’t it?
Too late…I already got that money. Sorry Frank!
Old Frank’s sole purpose here is to stir the pot.
Comment by Art Hill — January 15, 2013 @ 6:33 pm
…and stir it and stir it and stir it and stir it and stir it and stir it and stir it and then call the pot a “lib” and tell it that it’s been fooled by that dirty lying Obama into letting itself be stirred. Of course, no one has informed Frank that the burner has yet to be turned on and it’s only got one old boot (sans laces) in it and some muddy water he scooped up from the creek. Perhaps if he was to add some salt…
—————–
In re to this whole “Obama lied” thing:
Politicians lie? Holy profundity, Batman! It’s a good thing we have Frank around to selectively tell us which ones to worry about and which ones to overlook.
If a Republican farts and blames it on the dog, then the dog must have done it or they just blamed the dog for it’s own good. If a Democrat farts and blames it on the dog, then the dog is a Kool-Aid-drinking “lib” agent of Satan being fooled and manipulated by his evil masters. It all stinks and they all blame the dog. Mmmm… that’s some good hypocrisy you’re cooking up there, Frank. It’s still a little bland, though. Seriously, try some salt.
hey steve c,
…got your knee-pads on?
Hey J.M.,
Salt certainly adds a little spice to what’s bland. And, yes, I am certainly stirring the pot. And I agree, J.M., all politicians lie. However, over the past several months I’ve gotten the clear impression from you libbers that obama is above all that. So, i stir the pot (hey Art, go cry a river somewhere). And, you libs STILL protect obama’s lies about what was gonna happen to the working poor and middle class vis a vi taxes on January 1. According to you libs “everybody” knew that FICA taxes were going up. According to some lady-libs on this blog as of today and yesterday, those folks were “not too smart”, I guess referring to the low-information voters who were shamefully led down the primrose path by obama in order to corral their votes, and you guys fell for his rhetoric also…hook, line, and sinker. You still do.
And, J.M., my dog leaves the room when i fart. As does my wife and my cat. I blame no one for my emissions. I take full credit…full responsibility.
“Old Frank’s sole purpose here is to stir the pot.”
In intertubes parlance these people are called “trolls,” and most websites ban them so that people who are having an intelligent conversation aren’t distracted by silly inanities. Most websites, that is, not this one…
hey Art,
You are a peach. A real peach.
Dano features J.M’s faux tirade against my thoughts on things, makes it “post of the day”. I respond to J.M. And, I respond to each responder to me. And, you can’t keep up, ’cause it’s way over your pointy head, so you roll out the ol’ lib “pet”, the nefarious “troll”.
Go cry a river somewhere. Seriously? Trolls?
You’re right Art. And then Dan “fed” it (like he does Susie) by elevating JM’s comment to post of the day. Then the food fight takes off and the reading enjoyment is crap.
Dave Gresham,
I admire the talent, intellect and passion that went into the comment by J.M. White. It was very well put together. The truth is I don’t agree with everything he had to say, but I marveled at the way he put it. That’s the reason, and the only reason, I made it a post of the day.
ok folks, this has been fun.
Time for me to turn in.
I only can think of one more thing to say.
Actually, I think Gomer said it best. “…..SHAZAM!”
Frank’s been shouting at a brick wall all day and getting spanked like a rented government mule and it finally took the wind out of the old fella.
Thank God for small miracles.
“hey Art,
You are a peach.”
Thanks, Frank!
Coming from you, that means…
nothing.
No problem Dan. And it’s your blog. It’s just that I’ve gotten tired of every other post lately being from (or to) Frank. Makes for boring reading when it goes back and forth endlessly, ever deteriorating. Reminds me of Susie, who is another person whose comments I always ignore. (Nor do I read the replies that people make to them.)
In retrospect, Art’s comment struck a chord for me. And I wanted to support (what seemed to me like) constructive criticism on his part to improve the quality of conversations here.
Dave Gresham,
I hear ya.
“Nor do I read the replies that people make to them.”
Thanks, Dave, it was meant to be constructive. If the average user is ignoring the silly and repetitive diatribes of Suzie and Frank, as well as the replies, they’re overlooking 80% of this blog. Never mind the constant disruption of any productive conversation. This is the classic definition of the internet troll, and IMHO, hits now seem more important than content. Thanks for listening!
I would argue that making this the PotD actually helped deter some of the derailment of productive conversation elsewhere. Then again, Frank will drivel it across several threads simultaneously, so I get your point, Mr. Gresham. Frank may not do well with critical thinking but he makes up for it in multitasking.
After many years of feeding the trolls, I find that it’s a hard habit to break, especially considering I’m a member of several other sites specifically for such activities. I’ll try to refrain from clogging up the blog with it in the future, but I can only tolerate blatant stupidity for so long.
In retrospect, Art’s comment struck a chord for me.
That’s nonsense and we all know it. Art Hill has yet to engage in conversation here, intelligent or otherwise. 100% of his posts are meant to slam some conservative, either national or in the blog, and to get a reaction. Look at the four just in this thread. THAT is the very definition of troll.
Normally I wouldn’t weigh in, but it’s ridiculous to see Frank get slammed for responding to a thread OP that basically attacks him.
“Normally I wouldn’t weigh in…”
My guess is, if someone does a Whois on you and your buddy you’re going to end up ridiculously close. Just sayin’.
Hey J.M.,
Lest you forget, the points you and I have made in THIS thread were originally made on another thread.
Then ol’ dano gave YOU your own billing and forum to attack me some more, with a whole thread devoted to doing so.
Oops, J.M.
Yeah, you forgot that little part, ’cause it doesn’t fit your obnoxious story-line, does it?
Yep, J.M., You are a typical lib. No more, and certainly no less.
Hey Steve C,
Bill’s not around, so get up off your knees and listen. I have not been shouting at a brick wall. I have been responding to each post made to me on J.M.’s thread.
Oops. Maybe you are right, Steve C, even if you are on your knees. Y’see, ‘splaining stuff to you libs IS like talking to a brick wall.
Well done, Steve C.
“Normally I wouldn’t weigh in,…”
Quit it, suize, my sides are splitting!!
“And, J.M., my dog leaves the room when i fart. As does my wife and my cat. I blame no one for my emissions. I take full credit…full responsibility.
Comment by Frank — January 15, 2013 @ 9:06 pm”
How very classy and gentlemanly of you. Is your house so big you can’t get to the bathroom to let out those ‘emissions’? You sound like a middle school 12 y/o who likes to pass gas just to watch people’s reactions and then giggle about it.
Art, of course, is right, Frank is little more than a troll, and he’s gradually getting more offensive. Aspiring to be another suzie.
Hey 13 Suns,
yeah, sorry to have offended you. Ya see, I was using the same words and flavor as did the leader of the lib-trolls whose thread this is…see J.M. White’s post on 1/15 @7:56 p.m.
If you ARE one of them, then go wallow in it with J.M.
If you are NOT one of them, then watch out, ’cause the lib-trolls will throw it all at you, once they figure out your opinions don’t match their ideology.
Hey Frank, why don’t you go into more detail about this knee pad thing? What exactly so you mean?
gdad,
Respectfully, I don’t think we need to encourage Frank to be more inane than he already is.
No kidding, Ron. He’s got inane down.
Ron and Kristen, just making a point about how disgusting Frank’s getting. I know that he wont answer. Or if he does, I’d hope Dan would have the decency to delete.
well, gdad,
why don’t you ask steve c?
Lest you forget, the points you and I have made in THIS thread were originally made on another thread.
Then ol’ dano gave YOU your own billing and forum to attack me some more, with a whole thread devoted to doing so.
Comment by Frank — January 16, 2013 @ 8:47 am
First of all, getting “your own billing and forum” for making a comment on Dan’s Blog is pretty much the entire premise of a Post of the Day. It’s kind of implied in the title. Do try to keep up.
Lest you forget, Frank, your original reply to the comment was “Whatever,” and then a continuation of the nonsense contained within your feedback loop du jour. You chose to come on this thread and start up with the same idiocy about which only you seem to care. I didn’t even make a comment here until over three hours after it went up.
Your first comment on this thread is a feeble attempt at condescension (not to take away from your plethora of other feeble attempts here)… and then becomes a continuation of the nonsense contained within your feedback loop du jour. What did you do, sleep on it to come up with that oh-so-witty first paragraph?
And you, who is by far the most obnoxious poster on this blog, are ridiculous for even attempting to call someone else obnoxious. It’s a punchline without a joke, man. One need only look at your comments from 12:20 pm, 2:45 pm, 4:01 pm, 8:46 pm and 10:12 pm to see who has been obnoxious on this thread.
I’m not throwing 95mph heaters at you, Frank; this is tee-ball. Yet, for some reason, you want to stand halfway between the dugout and the batter’s box and swing away. The crowd and coaches are trying to get you over to where you actually have a chance, but instead you decide that the game isn’t fair and want to whine about it. Shut up.
My textual smackdown seems to have bothered you so bad that it transformed you into poor, persecuted Frank, whining about being “attacked”. You haven’t been attacked, palooka; your wounds are self-inflicted. You deserve every bit of ridicule you receive and you know it. You admit to just “stirring the pot” and then want to cry about the well-deserved throttling that you bring upon yourself? You’re being deliberately foolish, Frank, and you’re making a complete idiot of yourself.
If you don’t want to be “attacked”, the best course of action for you would be to keep those little sausage links you call fingers away from the keyboard. You present yourself as incapable of rational, reasoned, mature discussion so you have ZERO standing when you whine about what you’re only receiving in kind.
Get bent. I’m done with listening to you bray like a lobotomized jackass.
(Obviously, I don’t give an airborne copulation if this gets approved or not.)
Hey JM,
Glad to see your ah, response, such as it is.
I particularly enjoyed reading about your, ah, self-described “textual smackdown”, and “throttling” you gave me. Your words are not in the least intimdating. I find your behavior amusing. So, well, here I am, and there you are, still full of vim, vinegar, and kool-aid. Uh huh.
JM, through it all, you never dealt with obama’s campaign rhetoric vis a vi what happened to working-poor and middle-class take-home pay. Like a typical lib, you shift any responsibility away from your guy and pin it on republicans. Yet, you ignore your own guys’ “tax only the rich” rhetoric which he spewed through-out his campaign.
Please respond again, JM. I like watching libs (see, with me it’s not personal…) flounder and spew.
By the way, I realize that you are restraining yourself with the name-calling, so thank you. Being a lib is a heavy burden, I’m sure.
hey J.M. I aspire to keep my personal remarks from reaching the high-bar-heights attained by your’s…knowing that as I do, my posts won’t be trashed by ol’ dano…
Thanks for setting the standard concerning the limits of what ol’ dano will accept!
Let’s see if you’re capable of compromise: If you’ll address your asinine behavior on this blog, I’ll address Obama’s lies (I already did, but I guess it’s easier to keep playing your game if you pretend I didn’t).
I’m game, JM.
The reason you see many posts from me which refer to the same subject, is because I respond to most, if not all, posts directed to me personally, or which reference my post in an inane manner.
Now, your turn.
Politicians lie. Obama has lied (I made it bold for you. Are you happy now?). I don’t know of any single pol ever who didn’t lie. What are you going to accomplish by blubbering incessantly about it on a random backwater blog? What do you want any of us to do about it? Getting every single person on this blog to admit that Obama lied doesn’t change a damned thing and you know it. What’s your endgame? I mean, if your motivation is political, then you should be calling out every single one of your “no new taxes” Norquist acolytes who allowed the FICA increase to happen, too. After all, are they not on watch as well? To call one side out and not the other is hypocritical and disingenuous.
You’re not delivering some great message which all of us have missed but somehow you were able to grasp. What is more inane than repeating to the point of insanity something about which no one but yourself even cares?
If the majority of your readers are receptive to your message and encouraging you to carry it on to others, then you are a profound writer. If the majority of your readers are telling you that no one cares and to shut the hell up, you’re little more than a crazy cat lady hurling her cats at the ghosts that live in her spare bedroom. Do you see the difference there?
Now, you really didn’t address your side of the issue (asinine behavior). I didn’t ask you to address why you feel the need to repeat yourself over and over; I asked why you deliberately overlook any point that anyone gives you that flies in the face of your repeated assertions. I’m asking why you can’t seem to make it one single day without attempting to categorize people whom you do not know personally into a black/white, lib/con world.
To continue to state the things you do with the motive of aggravating and annoying others is asinine, obnoxious and immature. Hell, I’d even be a fan of yours if you were able to weave some humor in there or have an occasional thought that showed some measure of critical thinking ability. But that’s not what you do, is it? You know that no one cares, so you repeat yourself over and over solely to be irritating. That’s what children do, Frank, and you are not a child. Is it really that hard for you to act your age?
“Get bent. I’m done with listening to you bray like a lobotomized jackass. I don’t give an airborne copulation if this gets approved or not.”
Hehe.