So you're supporting Ron Paul?

Therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls - just check the Caller ID.

That does not negate the arguments made by the man's enemies. Even though everything I've read and heard about Charles Manson has been from people who despise him, I'm fairly certain I know enough about him to know that I don't want to invite him to dinner.

I would say a perfect example of this is Rush Limbaugh. Main stream USA doesn't like Limbaugh because of the tripe they hear about him on CNN. Rarely does anyone listen to his show outside of the conservative base and not become fond of his show.

I hear alot of talk from people that don't like him because of what they heard CNN say about him, but i rarely ever hear someone say they don't like him because they used to listen to his show.

You should judge a man by the quality of his enemies.

Btw, I don't care for Rush. Listened to his show (lots), read his books, don't like the man.

Is that from a Steven Seagal movie? ; )

Dave, I got agree with Matt on that one. It is Rush that attacks with half truths and factoids. Just today he said (in regards to the slowing economy) the economy is cyclical, so we should we worry.

If that is true then raising or lowering taxes would have no affect on the economy, but if that is true then why does he disparage Huchabee for raising taxes in AR when the net effect did not affect the economy, but did raise the standard of living of the average Arkansan (if that is a word)?

Raising taxes raises the standard of living for the taxpayers? Yep, it's gotta be Barney with that brand of "logic" ...

Raising taxes raises the standard of living for the taxpayers? Yep, it's gotta be Barney with that brand of "logic" ... DJ

No, actually Rush did. He said the economy was cyclical, so it is equally likely that when taxes are high the the economy is robust (more jobs and higher wages). The added tax revenues due to higher rates on increased earnings are used to improve schools, highways and state services as Huchabee expressed in last nights debate.

More jobs with higher pay and more and better state provided services sounds like a higher standard of living (on average) to me.

Half truths, Barney? So you are jealous that he's ahead of you?

Baghdad barney - " Just today he said (in regards to the slowing economy) the economy is cyclical, so we should we worry.

If that is true then raising or lowering taxes would have no affect on the economy,"

What a completely idiotic and buffoonish thing to say.

Your grasping at a rope that's not attached to anything with that argument.

More barney blather - "No, actually Rush did. He said the economy was cyclical, so it is equally likely that when taxes are high the the economy is robust (more jobs and higher wages)."

No nitwit when coporate taxes are raised, even by the slightest bit CEOs of companies effected pass the cost on to the consumer by raising the price of their goods. The only other way to make up for the extra cost is.... wait for it.... cost cutting in the form of job layoffs.

Grow a pair of ears barney. You must work for CNN. Good job misquoting him. And thanks for proving my point about Limbaugh.

Dave W - "Grow a pair of ears barney."

It's not his ears where the problem lays, it's what between them, or lack thereof, where there's a disconnect.

marc and dave, neither of you have proven that I took Rush out of context.

I don't disagree with one of your statements marc (..companies effected pass the cost on to the consumer by raising the price of their goods.) but one, that does not apply to the Huckabee analogy and second, according to Rush neither of those two options affect the economy because the economy is cyclical (his word not mine).

But here is novel suggestion. how bout the CEOs take pay cut, or at least decline an increase or all of his/her bonus?

Baghdad barney - "But here is novel suggestion. how bout the CEOs take pay cut, or at least decline an increase or all of his/her bonus?"

First of all I my comment had zero to do with any quotes out of context so don't lump me into that discussion. And that goes to any connection to what Huckabee has said or not said.

Secondly, a CEO forgoing any paycheck, although done by some (Lee Iaococa is famous for it), would have little to no effect on a companies bottomline.

Better try again.

"have little to no effect on a companies bottomline." marc

Good to hear that marc. Too bad I never mentioned the "bottomline (sic)" As far as the rest of your response "First of all I my comment had zero.." and "..any connection to what Huckabee has said or not said."

Well for the first, what the hell does "I my refer to? Are you that egotistical that you refer to yourself in multiple persons, and for the second, that was the basis of my comment, so if you were not responding to my central point, I guess you just wanted to glorify in the wind you were passing.

Baghdad barney - You're such a dickweed. Bottomline despite your addition of the "sic" is an acceptable use and spelling of the word.

Sorry you're so cloistered to be unaware of that, but hope you have learned something.

Secondly asswipe you didn't have to mention the bottomline in your comments. They in fact for the most part were related to taxation as it relates to a company's profits. In other words their bottomline.

Not to mention your suggestion for CEO's forfeiting their bonuses which also, at least based on your thinking, would have some dramatic effect on their BOTTOMLINE.

Quit being a blithering idiot.

An educational lesson for the blithering idiot:

Bottom line, BOTTOMLINE and bottom-line are all acceptable Engish.

Dickweed.

marc, again when did I mention corporate profits or bottom line? How about never. Your insistence on your part points to your delusional aspect of your personality.

I you want to address my initial statement please do. For your convenience here it is again:

It is Rush that attacks with half truths and factoids. Just today he said (in regards to the slowing economy) the economy is cyclical, so we should we worry.

If that is true then raising or lowering taxes would have no affect on the economy, but if that is true then why does he disparage Huchabee for raising taxes in AR when the net effect did not affect the economy, but did raise the standard of living of the average Arkansan (if that is a word)?

marc, you ignorant slut, I was talking about Rush and his attack on Huckabee's increases on personal taxes. Now go back to sleep.

Your suggestion ("But here is novel suggestion. how bout the CEOs take pay cut, or at least decline an increase or all of his/her bonus?")

That's directly related to a companies bottomline asswipe.

BTW, did you learn a new English spelling of a common word recently.

BTW dickweed...please explain why having both an economy be cyclical (the Goodwin model BTW) AND having a state or the Feds raising or lowering taxes not occur at the same time?

What prevents them from happening simultaneously?

Should I hold my breath?