Comments on: Rangel loses control – again, and calls VP “SOB”

By: Marshall Art

Marshall Art — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 06:12:42 +0000

I have to take exception to the “White House statements intended to raise fears about Rangel…” part. It should read, “White House statements intended to point out truths about Rangel…”

By: Determined to Strike

Determined to Strike — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 21:06:11 +0000

Off topic. –ST

By: Dana

Dana — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 19:35:06 +0000

Y’all have missed the Democrats’ line. They won’t raise taxes at all. They’ll simply let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire.

By: PCD

PCD — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 19:18:28 +0000

Fat Charlie Rangel is losing it because the truth hurts liars like Rangel.

By: Determined to Strike

Determined to Strike — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:59:39 +0000

Are you going to raise taxes

No, I don’t think that’s his plan
I think he plans to borrow more money from the chinese communists

By: stoo

stoo — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:55:41 +0000

The Cheney response I’d like to hear:

“Heya, Charlie! Wanna go hunting with me?”

By: Fat Tone

Fat Tone — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:08:28 +0000

So Charlie, any comments on the actual statements made by Cheney ?? Are you going to raise taxes ?? yes or No ??

Meanwhile, get hoppin on that draft bill.

By: Dana

Dana — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:23:10 +0000

The amazing part is that Vice President Cheney wasn’t speaking about Mr Rangel personally, but about his (and by extension, the Democrats in general) understanding of the economy and how it works. That’s a policy difference.

Mr Rangel, on the other hand, chose to make personal attacks on the Vice President — which is pathetic, but hardly surprising. Of course, that might be because the Vice President was absolutely correct: neither Mr Rangel specifically, nor the Democrats in general, do understand the economy, or economics.

You can take this as an axiom: if liberals really understood economics, they wouldn’t be liberals.