I just think she is a nut. But I dont hate her. Sometimes it is the little, arguably, unimportant things people do that reveal who they are. I have more indian blood in me than she claims to have but it never occurred to me in my 57 years on this earth to put that on my resume or anywhere else (until now!). 1/32?? Really? And her proof...gramma's high cheek bones??? I'll tell you this though, it was a funny story as it unfolded...great entertainment for me as I followed it pretty closely.

D.R. Tucker you have hit the prefect tone for all people. Look at facts as opposed to personality(one of teevee's favorite tricks.) THANK YOU!

Most of what I know about her is her use of non-"minority" status to further her career. She certainly doesn't spark "madness" or "roid rage" and that goes for every Republican I know as well.

Methinks Mr. Tucker is so desperate that a Republican may once again win a senate seat in the "bluest state in the union" that he's gotta try and find something to sell. I mean c'mon, she should be a slam dunk no?

Tucker may not be that far off in describing MA as the "bluest state in the union."

In 1972, it was the only state which George McGovern carried.

Funny thing about that '72 election. Two years later, as the House was voting for impeachment, I had trouble finding anyone who'd admit they voted for Nixon.

Nice of Wingnut Steve to drop in and repeat the debunked right wing smear about Prof. Warren's supposed misuse of "minority status" to further her career.

Glad he prefaced it with "most of what I know."

The many fact-free comments my wing nut friend has posted at this site have demonstrated that he doesn't "know" a hell of a lot.

But then that's the essence of wing nut status. You can just repeat the latest right wing talking point --- facts be damned.

One thing I do like about EW is that she, in classic indian fashion, drew BO into a massacre over this "you didn't build that" dust up. Unlike Sitting Bull, she did not intend to (nor is she firing arrows)...one of those "unintended consequences" things. I can only guess that BO heard her and it resonated with him so much that he had to expound on it...revealing his true nature.

WingnutSteve @ 3 said, with a straight face:

Most of what I know about her is her use of non-"minority" status to further her career. She certainly doesn't spark "madness" or "roid rage" and that goes for every Republican I know as well.

So, a very well respected Harvard economics professor serves for years as the key adviser to the President of the United States, to help stand up the new Consumer Financial Bureau (which was an idea she had campaigned for for years) in response to the worst global financial collapse since the Great Depression, yet the bulk of what you (and every Republican you know) claim to know about her is "her use of non-'minority' status to further her career"?

And yet you then go on to say that she *doesn't* spark "madness" in your party?

Would it be more accurate then to say she "reveals idiocy and/or purposeful ignorance" in your party, with the leaders of that party willing to play folks like you as fools?

Methinks Mr. Tucker is so desperate that a Republican may once again win a senate seat in the "bluest state in the union" that he's gotta try and find something to sell.

He's "desperate that a Republican may once again win"? Did you not read the actual article, wherein D.R. had said that he voted for Brown the first time??? And yet now he's "desperate"?

Someone may be "desperate" here, but I don't think it's D.R.

Astounding! In a single paragraph, Davey Crocket @6 shamelessly combines a racist smear of Native Americans with a fact-free repetition of the Fox 'News' out-of-context "you didn't build it" smear of the President.

Thanks, Davey. You've provided the ideal occasion to use these John Stewart clips.

Ernie Canning said @ 4:

Tucker may not be that far off in describing MA as the "bluest state in the union."

In 1972, it was the only state which George McGovern carried.

Okay, Grampa. Got anything fresher than 1972?

Of course, measures for "blueness" can be taken from all sorts of things. Largely the whole Blue/Red trick is courtesy of Karl Rove and friends who hope to divide the nation into thinking that way, which is why I avoid such references when possible. But this "bluest" of states also recently elected Mitt Romney as Governor and Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate.

So if we're gonna go "blue" hunting, perhaps a better measure might be the reported results (for what they're worth) from the 2008 Presidential election, which Josh Marshall just revisited the other day.

He noticed that in the purportedly "bluest" state of Massachusetts, Obama was said to have won by a whopping 25.81% margin over John McCain. And yet, here's how Obama reportedly did in other states which are arguably-bluer-or-nearly-as-blue by the same standard:

Hawaii (45.26%)
Vermont (37%)
Rhode Island (27.92%)
New York (26.86%)
Massachusetts (25.81%)
Illinois (25.14%)
Delaware (25%)
California (24.6%)

That makes MA the 5th "bluest" state in the union, by that measure, with several coming up right behind it, almost tied for blue-ishness.

Many of those states recently had Republican Governors as well, which is why the whole Red/Blue paradigm is a silly idea meant only to divide the nation across imaginary "colors". And it works!

I said she doesn't spark roid rage or madness in me, or for any of my republican friends.

I'm from the other side of the country and just a regular guy. I don't spend my day poring over Massachusetts political news so yeah, I don't know a whole lot about her.

And at any rate, I stand by my comment about Mr. Tucker I don't care who he voted for in 2010. And nothing you or Ernie has said can back up the claim that Republicans "hate" Warren or suffer from "Warrenphobia". I'm a Republican, I don't.

Davey Crocket whiffed again @ 6 with -

"you didn't build that" dust up. ... I can only guess that BO heard her and it resonated with him so much that he had to expound on it...revealing his true nature

My thanks to Ernie for beating me to posting that clip. I guess she also succeeded in "revealing" Mitt Romney's "true nature" as well, since he said the exact same thing both this week, and as long ago as 2002 during the Olympics.

Go figure.

Perhaps we should thank Warren for revealing the "true nature" of dupes like Davey Crocket, who are only too willing to fall for every dishonest political scam created by the GOP and propagandized on Fox "News"? (But of course, the true nature willingness of the GOP to dishonestly represent anything in hopes of gaining power was revealed long ago, so we can't really blame Warren for that either.)

Ernie @ 8 said:

"In a single paragraph, Davey Crocket @6 shamelessly combines a racist smear of Native Americans with a fact-free repetition of the Fox 'News' out-of-context "you didn't build it" smear of the President."

It's not a smear, it's a direct quote NOT taken out of context no matter how the left wing tries to damage control spin it.

WingnutSteve tried again @ 10 with:

I'm from the other side of the country and just a regular guy. I don't spend my day poring over Massachusetts political news so yeah, I don't know a whole lot about her.

Huh. And yet, "from the other side of the country", while you knew nothing about her remarkable accomplishments near the pinnacle of political power in this country at one of the most precarious economic moments in modern global history, you somehow knew all about the phony GOP-generated "scandal" that has been used to tar her.

But, of course, she doesn't drive Republican to "madness" at all

(Serious question: Don't you ever get tired of playing their dupe, Steve?)

WingnutSteve @ 12 said, re: "You didn't build that:"

It's not a smear, it's a direct quote NOT taken out of context no matter how the left wing tries to damage control spin it

Heheh...Never mind my "Serious question" to you up above @ 13. You just answered it.

(P.S. I hear the GOP can get you a pretty good price on a bridge in NY! You should think about taking them up on it! Offers like that come along only once in a lifetime!)

Brad you can play the insult tossing child all you want but it doesn't change the facts: Obama said it, and Warrens claims that she is a minority was all over the news.

Don't you ever tire of falling back on insults as a means of defense?

Not taken out of context, Wingnut Steve proclaims.

Obviously, you didn't bother to watch the John Stewart video. "You didn't build it" refers to the roads leading to whatever factory the private capitalist has extracted profits from. Of course, if one bothered to read Keven Phillips, Wealth and Democracy, you'd understand how all the great fortunes are acquired with a massive boost from government and public monies.

Oh, and Wingnut Steve adds:

Obama said it, and Warrens claims that she is a minority was all over the news

Yes, if you heard it on TV it must be true, right? The media, especially, right-wing media like Fox "News" never get the facts wrong, right? The fact that the actual content of the President's speech proves that Fox 'New' deliberately took his words out-of-context in order to smear him must be ignored.

Try reading our most recent article on the subject of the failure of media to accurately report, Steve. That deals with the unverified and now debunked claim made by FL Gov. Rick Scott that his purge captured 107 non-citizens --- a lie that you repeated here as if it were the God's given truth!

Another whiff from the Wingnut. You're batting .000. How long before you take yourself out the line-up Steve?

Ooops that should be perfect, and Mr. Crocket is that really the best you can come with to compare the candidates when sooo many critical issues hang in the balance? And sorry for the delay in my response, but it was a power outage that has now been repaired. I really have a hard time giving wingnutsteve any of my time so...I'll leave that to Brad and Ernie! Thanks guys, and Ernie I will check out the Jon posting though. Thanks for that, seeing how my directtv is still not carrying CC. Hey clearview, cough up the cash, I want my Ha Ha's back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Brad, you are so funny. Earnest too.

BO believes exactly what he said. So does Liz. I believe exactly opposite. I dont need FOX to explain it to me.

Racist smear?? Good try. You need to bone up on your history and then google the word "metaphor." Yes, "racist" another classic liberal ploy.

Yes, I will have the Classic Italian on white--"YOU RACIST"--ok maaam, Classic Italian on wheat...blablablabla

Hey davey crocket, try watching the clip Ernie posted. You may just learn something about the clear differences in stratagies at work.

They are worried about Warren because on the issues, she does not seem to be a tool of the propaganda machine that protects the status quo on Wall Street and the big Banks. She also has two brain cells that function, and is likely smarter than the lobbyist who deal with the average Politician. While I do not think she will be able to change the system of corrupt influence, I do think she will require that the excesses and stupid acquiescence of the regulators end. Brown on the other hand appears to facilitate the excesses and look the other way regulating.

No Ernie, I don't typically watch late night comedians as a news source so I passed on the Stewart piece.

And you watch more Fox News in a day than I watch in a year. I never watch it, and since you are completely incapable of responding to any sort of disagreement about your beliefs without hurling the "you saw it on Fox News" slam I can only assume that you watch it 24/7. Because you after all know EVERYTHING that Fox News puts on the air.

I watched the video...it was a good try.

WingnutSteve @ 15 kept digging:

Brad you can play the insult tossing child all you want but it doesn't change the facts: Obama said it

Excellent point, Steve! Ya got me there!

So, why are you then supporting Mitt Romney who believes "we should just raise everybody's taxes"; that "there's nothing unique about the United States"; that "Government knows better than a free people how to guide an economy"; that "fiscal responsibility is heartless and immoral"; and many more similarly disturbing statements?!:

Don't you ever tire of falling back on insults as a means of defense?

Don't you ever tired of being wrong, and embarassing yourself here time and again, while serving as a stooge for the very folks who are purposely misinforming you and playing you for a sucker in hopes that you'll show up here to serve as their stooge??

Davey Crocket @ 18 actually said:

BO believes exactly what he said. So does Liz. I believe exactly opposite. I dont need FOX to explain it to me.

Good. Cause they won't. Yes, BO believes what he said, that there are a lot of people, including the government, who share in the success of all businesses in this country. That is was Liz said as well.

Do you disagree with that? Because that's also what Mitt Romney said if you bother to watch the Daily Show video above that, apparently, Wingnut Steve is too frightened to watch or something (because, ya know, it's from a "late night comedian", so his video clips, accurately taken from a speech in their full context should be ignored because...ya know...he's a "late night comedian"...or something).

As to your "racist smear", yes, it was exactly that. Having family members with a very long and very proud and very distinguished native American heritage, I can tell you they would see it exactly that way. And yes, many of them are even from Texas and Republicans.

Nice try Brad, don't like the topic change the subject.

Whether I support Romney or not, or my reasons why have nothing to do with all you lefties scampering around whining that Obama's words were taken out of context when they clearly weren't. I responded to Ernie's lame attempt to do that, not to the merits of the two candidates.

As to being wrong, this is a recent "progressive" phenomena. Rather than make any valid points, just stamp your feet and shout "Fox News" which somehow wins an argument for your side. That doesn't make it true anymore than your "it's about right vs. wrong" garbage makes that true.

Davey Crocket said @ 22:

I watched the video...it was a good try.

"Good try"? What was wrong with it? Surely you can tell us how he got it wrong, but you got it right. No?

Apparently not. And for good reason. Because, continuing your nearly perfect record here, you got it wrong, and you're too embarrassed to admit that.

(P.S. It looks like Ernie only posted Part II of that Daily Show video above. Part I included the full, uncut context that Fox and the the Republicans have consistently and purposely deceptively edited and knowingly quoted out of context so dupes like Steve would go out and repeat. I've edited Ernie's comment @ 8 above to add Part I of the video above it. Be sure to not watch that as well, Steve, and/or say "good try" without admitting how you got it completely wrong, instead of doing what a grownup would do, and admit that you were played for a fool by your party...again.)

I am still amazed at the sheer stupidity of wingnuts and Reich wingers.
It simply boggles the mind that people can be this stupid and still able to dress themselves.

IMO, I think Elisabeth Warren would make a fantastic President and would vote for her in a heartbeat.
She would be better than Obama.

Wingnut:

Even if Obama's words weren't taken out of context he's telling the public he wishes to retract those words. It's just like Romney retracting his support of mandated healthcare.

Sally,

I don't dispute that. I'm talking about, once again,

"Whether I support Romney or not, or my reasons why have nothing to do with all you lefties scampering around whining that Obama's words were taken out of context when they clearly weren't. I responded to Ernie's lame attempt to do that, not to the merits of the two candidates."

re: steve@15 comment
"Brad you can play the insult tossing child all you want but it doesn't change the facts: Obama said it, and Warrens claims that she is a minority was all over the news."

Bush said the were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that Saddam supported Osama bin Laden. That was all over the news too. It doesn't make any of what was said fact. In short order, that is a poor argument, at best.

Hey Nunya, lets get her in the Senate...that would be a HUGE step inthe right direction. My personal opinion of all our senators is barely higher than the house. I will eggmit there are still a handful of good ones in each.
Now I'm off to watch my peeps. The Stillers at training camp. And yes, I'm giving Ben a second chance. I just pray he has really learned his lesson...TREAT WOMEN WITH RESPECT DAMN IT! I guess it stems from the catholic girl in me who now considers herself Christian but not catholic, and before anyone tries to jump me on that point, I still have tons of catholic friends and family! TaTa .

I watched the video.

Here is part of what Liz said:
You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for.

We all paid for the roads.
We all paid for the education.
We all paid for the police.

OK. In that sense it is a level field. In reality I paid for much more than others and there are some that probably paid virtually zero. In fact a good percentage of people do not pay income tax. Yes, I understand they pay sales tax, gas tax, state tax...blablablabla...I pay all of that too. I am pretty sure that I pay much more than those 40+ % who pay no income tax. Fine, I am happy to pay taxes--some taxes but dont piss away my tax money on losers and stupid cronie deals (e.g., solyndra et al.) and a zillion other ways the fed wastes money. Dont raise my taxes any more. That is the way I will vote. Lower taxes and smaller government.

Finally, I admit it...I learned all of this from Rush and Fox--every bit.

Wingnut Steve @ 32:

I pay all of that too. I am pretty sure that I pay much more than those 40+ % who pay no income tax.

I am pretty sure that you consume more as well. Nonetheless, yes, I suppose if I had been as blatantly and embarrassingly wrong about what Obama said, I'd want to move the goal posts to an entirely new argument as well.

Dont raise my taxes any more. That is the way I will vote. Lower taxes and smaller government.

Okay, then. Guess you'll be voting Democratic this year? Obama has consistently lowered your taxes and decreased the size of government since taking office.

Moreover, the Dems have now voted to lower your taxes again, but the Republicans, so far, are blocking that, and appear to be dead set on raising your taxes beginning January 1, 2013.

It's so ironic that you'll be voting for Democrats this year. They thank you!

Davey Wingnut--

You guys are stunning. If words have any meaning, what Obama said was taken out of context. Out of context in this case means that Obama's full remarks were edited for manipulative purposes by Fox. Do you agree that Obama's remarks were edited, or not? They were, that's just observable fact, so if you insist on stating as fact something that is so clearly, demonstrably false, I'd be all for kicking you out of here as some of us are trying to have serious discussions. I'm all for differing opinions but there has to be some standard of agreed upon observable reality otherwise, what's the point?

Here's another question for you both. Can you tell the difference in conveyed meanings between what Obama actually said and what Fox misrepresented him as saying, or do both the edited and unedited versions convey the same meaning to you? Cuz if what he actually said and what Fox's misleading and manipulative edit suggests he said sound the same to you, there would seem to be no point in trying to have dialogue as there would appear to be little common ground as to what constitutes reality.

Finally, you guys, of all guys, are supposed to be about taking personal responsibility, no? Yes? You both miscalled this. To my way of thinking taking responsibility in this case would require some acknowledgment by each of you that you made a mistake. Haven't heard anything like that from either one of you. What's your idea of taking responsibility when you make a mistake and are called on it? Or is taking personal responsibility just an empty catch phrase with no actual applicability in real life in real time to real conservatives?

David Lasagna asked @ 34:

Or is taking personal responsibility just an empty catch phrase with no actual applicability in real life in real time to real conservatives?

They are not real conservatives. D.R. Tucker, the author of this article is, but neither Wingnut Steve nor Davey Crocket are. Else, as you point out, they'd take personal responsibility for having gotten it completely wrong yet again.

They are, for all intents and purposes, "conservatives", like George W. Bush and Mitt Romney and all the other phony "conservatives" who haven't a clue what that conservatism actually is.

I have never ever ever ever claimed to be a conservative Brad, please point out to me where I have. I'll be waiting. We probably agree on more things than you'd think, in fact I'm sure we do. I'm just not as angry as you and I don't see every issue as right vs. left.

I get the damage control back peddling by all you guys David. Obama is failing, and it seems that more and more he puts his foot in his mouth when he speaks. Which he did here. That articulate and inspired orator is long gone. Move on.

#36
Obama has only "failed" on 2 things.
He continued both of Bush's illegal, unjust and unpaid for wars.
and his ridiculous continuation of the war on drugs.

but thats it, everything that he has managed to get through this pathetic congress has been good for the country even though watered down by Reich wing nutbags, no failures at all.

Now things are indeed failing but it has NOTHING to do with Obama or the Democrats.
You ignorantly seem to believe we elected a Dictator or Emperor that can change any law, do what ever he pleases to the peasants and serfs.

But in reality where everyone else responding on this page reside we all know that we elected a "President", one of which can basically do NOTHING without Congress short of just a very few things.

But passing laws & bills dealing with the economy etc all he can do is sign or veto what he is given.
now whom in Congress has made it their sole agenda to NOT pass ANYTHING of any importance or any help to the economy?

TPUBLICANS!

They have done everything possible to destroy the economy and boneheaded idiots like you are why they continually get away with such treasonous acts.
Obama has done everything possible, bent over backwards, given them everything they wanted, you name it to no avail.

Bush and company is why we are in this mess.
The current crop of Tpublicans is why we are staying in this mess.

If we had a "real" majority in both House and Senate of progressive Democrats we would probably be about 5% unemployment right now and back on track.

Tpublicans are the problem, not the answer.

Get a grip

Excellent article D.R.!

I have never contributed to any candidate for elected office, unless I could cast a vote for him/her. I reconsidered that policy when Elizabeth Warren decided to campaign for Senator in MA.

I also never feed trolls.

Brad, thanks for the Think Progress compilation video of Rmoney's left-wing comments. Hilarious!

Oops. Please change 'left-wing' comments, to, anti-American comments.

I forgot...contribute to Elizabeth Warren's campaign here:

http://elizabethwarren.com/

Wingnutsteve @36--

You've got to be fucking kidding me.

That is some of the most disingenuous bullshit I've ever read.

You've never claimed to be a conservative? Uh huh. Uh huh. Okay. Okay.

1. But you do claim to be Wingnutsteve. Perhaps you're unaware of the conservative connotations the term "wingnut" has in the English language? That would be weird. I always thought your username connoted a certain pride you took in your conservative views. But who knows?

2. In this comment section alone you've used as terms of disparagement--the left wing, late night comedians(which I assume refers to Colbert and Stewart), and "progressive".

3. You parrot right wingnut talking points on Elizabeth Warren.

Yeah, you sound for all the world to be exactly what you refer to yourself as--a wingnut. But you're a wingnut who's not a conservative, somehow? Are you related to Bill Clinton by any chance? Maybe took a little correspondence course in dissembling from Bubba?

Then you cop the most obnoxious smirky attitude and out-Clinton Bill by referring to straightforward questions as "backpedaling" in a pathetic smoke and mirrors attempt to avoid answering some pretty basic questions about taking responsibility and copping to a mistake. Slimey.

Serial dissembling. If you are not capable of simply and humbly admitting you're wrong when you're wrong which many of the rest of us here have done over the years, if you insist on repeating a factually untrue statement with not the slightest sign acknowledgment or correction, I say kick the bum out. He ain't playin' by the rules. He's into tyrant rules.

David, I used to post as Steve. Someone, I think it was you, complained to me that there was already someone as a regular bradblog poster named Steve which was confusing. So I changed my name and I chose the name Ernie routinely called me, wingnutsteve.

I am a Republican, just not very conservative. As far as using the terms Progressive, leftwing etc.... let me just say that one doesn't have to be extreme right to recognize that another is way out there on the left.

I wouldnt pass a wingnut test by any stretch of the imagination. Davy Crocket would likely consider me a RINO.

Wingnutsteve @42--

I would most heartily disagree. One(you)DOES have to be from the extreme right to perceive what you seem to perceive as way out there on the left. For instance, only someone with a radically right viewpoint would ever confuse Obama as having anything to do with the left. He's what a conservative Republican used to be.

But truth be told, I don't really care all that much about the left/right labels. They don't really mean all that much. It's close-mindedness of any stripe that I object to. I have found that Barney Frank can be as ignorant and dismissive as my Tea Party relatives.

Much more important to me than political persuasion is substantive discussion of real issues. Much more important is the integrity of the discussion. Much more important is the merit(or lack of merit)of ideas. Ideas with merit might come from anywhere. That's one of the reasons I've taken the time to read books by people I really don't care for like--Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Beck.

That's one of the warning flags I got about you in this thread. Your snide dismissal of and refusal to check out the Stewart video smacked of not only extreme prejudice but also of a lack of awareness of how comedians throughout the ages have been the treasured purveyors of truth. Your dismissive response to evidence offered through a comedic video seemed like close-mindedness of the worst sort. Is that calling you a name? I don't think so. Ascribing to you a characteristic that you sure seemed to manifest by your comment is what adjectives are for. Words have meaning.

We all have our own rules. Some of mine are--for meaningful discussion to take place there must be mutual acknowledgment of differing points of view. Points made need to be addressed and deconstructed/analyzed with evidence and reason by both parties.

As a discussion progresses it's helpful if some mutual agreement can be reached as to what constitutes reality.

Following those simple rules gives a discussion a chance to evolve. Abandoning those rules leads to chaos, nonsense, and sometimes conversational tyranny.

You and Davey Crockett jumped in with typically weird conservative critiques of Warren that despite your handwringing about being called names yourself amounted to little more than you name-calling her.

In response to the debunking of your and Davey's claims about Warren you then started on another false trail, this time about Obama, again repeating Fox Noise propaganda. I don't care whether it's you or Fox Noise or an Olympic Torch Bearer speaking untruths about what Obama said. Promoting manipulative bullshit is promoting manipulative bullshit.

I am not saying this as an Obama fan. It pisses me off when you righteously assume that's where I'm coming from. It ain't. That's one of your presumptuous mistakes. There is very much about Obama and his choices that I find appalling. I wrestle with whether I'll be able to vote for him or not. If you read Glenn Greenwald regularly one can find legitimate reasons to be really pissed at Obama. The reason I object when you say shit that just ain't true about Obama is cuz I just can't stand shit that just ain't true.

You and Crockett were repeatedly called out on promoting that particular bullshit about what Obama said. Evidence be damned you both just kept on insisting on the truth of that lie. That will not do. That you never cop to promoting untruth makes you an unreliable witness.

I have been wrong here on numerous occasions arguing with people from across the political spectrum. When it's clear that I was mistaken, I cop to it. I got no problem with being wrong. I got no problem with other people being wrong. I got a big problem with people being wrong and not copping to it.

Wow David, you're all over the place on that comment. Don't know where to start....

Elizabeth Warren - Google Elizabeth warren minority controversy and there are ample links to various stories from various media outlets. I didn't look too far but I didn't see a fox news link. Most of the articles from the Boston Globe and the Washington Post for example, agree that there is indeed something to the criticism. If you're accepting brad or Ernie as a news source that's your first problem.

We will have to agree to disagree on the Obama quote. Its clear to me what he said.

Your rule of mutual acknowledgement of differing points of view, sorry to say, is laughable at this site. Its how I got my name in the first place. Take brads recent pieces on gun control as an example. I completely agree we need stricter gun laws. I didn't comment on his piece however, because the premis that the NrA supports terrorism is ridiculous. I'm not a fan of the NRA, I don't agree with what they stand for, but I think linking them with terrorism is inaccurate. Had i said that, Ernie and/or Brad would have immediately gone to the old I'm brainwashed by fox news garbage which is 90% of their repertoire. And again I'd find myself arguing about nothing.

Good to see wing nut is resting from taking up our thought time ...when we have sooooooooooooo much more to do than read his spews. The rest of us should refuse to read his idiocy! Simply bypassing bullshit helps one maintain a clearer path. Becoming a discriminating reader is a good thing!

And yes, I have discriminated against that waste of my time quite a awhile back. What a gigantic asshole. Sorry Brad I know i just broke one of the few rules.

And somebody please get me off of block quotes...

On a better note, training camp was very interesting. I'll have more to say about it in the future, but guess what friendly nurse helped Ben to get the polio victim to the cart he made happen for him? Yes, yours truly!

The Olympics has inspired a train of thought today actually. Yeah to be honest I identify and feel part Creten somehow today. Imagine that a part of history that has no good explanation as to how they DISSAPPEARED is happening again today! Kinda like, kkkarl has been incarnated from past history, but evidence still exists…and a viable explanation still does not exist.

FYI--the Brown campaign has just released a new ad featuring Raymond Flynn.

http://videocafe.crooksa...apart-dishonest-campaign

"The Obama campaign wasn't spared either, but most of Lewis Black's epic rant on The Daily Show this Tuesday evening was directed towards the lying Romney campaign and their ridiculous "you didn't build that" ad and his hypocrisy on the subject."

wingnutsteve @44--

I agree my last comment was not my best. I shoulda let it go last night and just started over today.

Here's my problem with you in a big nutshell. I think you and I have fundamentally different notions on what constitutes reality, evidence, reasoned argument, and changing the subject. I think our differing perceptions of the meanings of these words contributes to a strong sense of incoherency when I read your comments. I'm a continuity guy and I often just can't follow the sense of what you're saying.

To deconstruct this latest confusion--You jump in with a comment about Elizabeth Warren. It's negative and based on reporting that is countered with subsequent reporting and commentary that at the very least offers a radically different interpretation of reality and events. These alternative narratives do not come solely from Brad and Ernie. They also come from links to pieces by Jonathan Turley and Ed Kilgore.

But you act as if these alternative narratives do not exist or haven't been referred to though they are right there in the middle of the ongoing arguments. Either you didn't read them or you don't believe them. If you didn't read them, you are not arguing in good faith because you didn't look at counter-evidence offered. If you don't believe them, you offer zero rebuttal or deconstruction. This is an example of why I characterize your approach as close-minded and not acknowledging the other side of the argument. And why it can be so hard to try to make sense of your arguments.

Then in defense of Davey Crocket you jump into the latest Fox faux brouhaha about what Obama said.

I try really hard to understand where someone with a different point of view is coming from. I try really hard to see it, to try to make sense of it from their point of view. And if what you mean by insisting Obama wasn't taken out of context is that he said the words--"you didn't build that", strictly speaking you are correct. He did say those words.

But to say that those words mean what the selectively edited misreporting by Fox claims they mean; to assert as reality a distorted interpretation willfully ignoring/denying his accompanying words about infrastructure, etc; to ignore Obama's summation(which is right there in the Stewart video which you dismiss and ignore)that the point he's making is that we don't do anything without a lot of support from a lot of different places; is to assert and promote a version of reality that distorts truth and meaning beyond recognition.

The disconnect between what he obviously meant and your insistence that he said those words which apparently convey to you a completely different meaning seems extremely odd, to say the least. It's impossible to make sense of.

You act like this is not what is being discussed. That is incomprehensible to me. Life's too short to have to deconstruct this again and again. If you don't get this, you don't get this, and I'll see what I can do to not engage you anymore. We apparently do not have enough common intersection of agreement on the basic meanings of words to have anything resembling meaningful conversation.

Steve--

A recent Republican bill calls for a freeze on regulations until employment is at 6%.

So, clearly the Republicans support 94% unemployment. It's literally what they wrote. Nobody can argue with that. No amount of right wing spin can change the fact that that is exactly what they wrote. Are you gonna insist that's what they meant? Or is the intended meaning in this case obvious somehow?

(This also is courtesy of one of those comedians you don't go to for news. What the hell would they know?)

Hey, been meaning to post this again.

In the course of this post and resulting comments there have been several references made to Scott Brown's "win" in the 2010 Massachusetts Special Election.

As the questions raised in this excellent piece by Jonathan Simon make clear, it is not at all certain that he did win.

http://electiondefenseal...nce.org/frontpage?page=2

Oh David, you have succinctly exposed why I will not engage and waste my thought time anymore.
THANK YOU!
And did you know that the Cretan's culture included women as equals?

Doing our own Olympic thing I and a few of my guy friends just ran a 2-3 rated river. God, what an incredible vibe. Happy trails everyone.

Ya know, I wish the whole world would grow the fuck up!

Especially America, we

could

be a real leader. But not this way, hell we don't have real democracy here in the usa, just consumption of a myth.

We need to get rid of fossil fuel globally, and start taking real care of the planet and her people.

It fries my ass, because the technology actually exists. And I have a child!

Way too many kids in high places seem imbalanced to me.

Night, night yall. Sweet dreams and God bless us all.

Not a fan of Warren here!

If it says scott brown(R-POS) Flush it Down !

Tim @63 wrote:

Not a fan of Warren here!

Thanks, Dad! --- Scott

Following Wingnut Steve’s methodology, here are a few examples of what he would deny amounts to taking words out-of-context.

#3: Mr. Tucker is…a Republican

#10 I’m from…Massachusetts. And at any rate…Republicans "hate" Warren.

#36 I…see every issue as right vs. left.

#42 I…pass a wingnut test by…imagination.

#44 We will have to agree. The NrA supports terrorism. I’m…a fan of the NRA. I’m brainwashed by Fox News garbage. I’d find myself arguing about nothing.
__________________

Now Steve, please don't come back and say that I've distorted what you said --- not after you laid down the classic --- "scampering around whining that Obama's words were taken out of context."

If what you and your wingnut media friends throughout the right-wing echo chamber attempted to portray did not amount to taking the President's remarks "out of context" then my attribution to you above is not "taken out of context."

So don't come back with your "scampering whining that [your] words were taken out of context."

Thanks for dropping in and, once again, making a complete ass of yourself.

Nicely done Ernie! I got Andrea Mitchelled! Or Breitbarted even! Please tell me you didn't spend your entire weekend coming up with that... At any rate I appreciate the effort, good comedy after the discomfort of reading ancient (bless his heart) have a conversation with himself. I think he must have been concerned about being banned by Brad for violating one of the site rules so he tried to get his moneys worth. Fear not ancient! The rules apply to those who disagree with Brad!

But guess what Ernie? You can go kick the cat some more because despite your hard working edit of my words they are clearly still an edit. And the quote from the President? That's still a quote....

Now, I would call you an ass too, but that would be violating one of Brads rules. And I would not want to do that, so I won't.

Wingnutsteve @67,

Any chance you're gonna respond to the last thing I wrote you @52? Did you not see it? Or are you blowing me off? It's about why your comments are so hard for me to follow. I don't even call you any names.

ps. Brad has admonished me for breaking the rules, so it's not true that they apply only to those who disagree. Besides that sometimes I disagree with him, myself. Though it is rare.

Ah, my tireless spinster, Wingnut Steve.

If you had bothered to watch the two-part Daily Show segment, you would know that the effort to spin the President's words by you and your Fox "News" friends you deny ever watching was a dishonest "edit" --- nothing more!

You have, time-and-again, displayed your intellectual dishonesty on the pages of The BRAD BLOG.

So, it doesn't surprise me that you have repeated that pattern here.

What I truly find shocking, however, is that you actually believe that anyone who has seen the full text of the President's remarks would actually be dumb enough to be taken in by your B.S. if you simply tacked on something as inane as "scampering around whining that Obama's words were taken out of context."

I'll repeat what I asked @16: You're batting .000. How long before you take yourself out the line-up Steve?

Oh, and no Steve. I didn't spend the weekend working on this. In fact, I was off-the-grid the entire weekend enjoying my 33rd anniversary.

It takes all of five (5) seconds to dispose of your puny mumblings about "scampering around whining."

To David Lasagna: Wingnut Steve ignored your comment @52 just as he chose to ignore the Stewart videos.

The reason he chooses to ignore the facts is that Wingnut Steve is a propagandist.

While I doubt that he has achieved a level of self-awareness that would reflect understanding of the process in play, what is clear is that the methods Wingnut Steve has employed come straight out of Mein Kampf, which states that “propaganda had to be continuous and unvarying in its message. It should never admit a glimmer of doubt in its own claims, or concede the tiniest element of right in the claims of the other side.”

Wow, predictable Ernie. It's okay to be wrong dude but instead of just letting it die you decide you must go down in a blaze of glory. Think for a minute, you criticize me for Fox News. Right there it's clear that you have nothing when you have to constantly go for that "slam". Then in the next fuzzy thought you say with a straight face that you get your news from a late night comedian. Your argument is an exercise in stupidity. And then ya throw the old Nazi reference in which really indicates you've hit rock bottom. Go back to your Mad Magazine...

David, really. Really... Jonathan Turley and Ed Kilgore? You may as well be citing Ernie as a source, but then again we all know only Ernie likely would cite Ernie as a source. How about if I just go read some Victor Davis Hanson, or maybe some Ann Coulter and cite them as a source?

Opinions are just that, opinions. Words on paper and on tape, it may be inconvenient for you but they are what they are.

Hey D.R. Tucker, great connection to "follow the money" and an attempt to influence catholic voters in MA. Just the sound of the guy's voice and his ethnic appearance says it all! But, he was clinton's ambassador to the vatican,it doesn't get much clearer than that. Thanks again, great example of the subtle manipulation of unwitting masses that won't take a look beyond the covers over their heads. And G-man, I just LOVE Lewis Black!!!!!!!!! That's another spot on piece.
And oh yeah, my CC is back on directteevee!

Also, I feel I need to clarify an earlier comment that I am a christian. I guess since I was raised catholic... the good parts of what Jesus taught are in there but...as a person who believes all religions have a piece of the truth, but come from different cultural perspectives, I find the Essenes fascinating!

http://en.wikipedia.org/...Andr%C3%A9_Dupont-Sommer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essenes

http://www.essene.com/

http://www.essenespirit.com/

I'm not saying I'm Essene, but when it comes to christianity, I find them closer to what Christ taught, and I was honorarily Bat Mitzvahed!

Steve,

You are not making any sense, again. Either you're aware that you are not making any sense in which case you're just fucking with us, or you are unaware that you are not making any sense in which case you are fucking with yourself as well. Hard to tell.

Dismissing Turley, Kilgore, and Ernie as you do is not an argument or anything like an actual argument. It is THE standard issue right-wing method used INSTEAD of argument. It is basically nothing more than a schoolyard taunt--"Nyahh, nyahh you're stupid(or you're liberal, or you're a socialist, or you're Michael Moore, or you're fill-in-the blank.)"

It is the go to response for people who have no argument but don't like what is being said. It would be more honest if you just said that--"I have no argument, but I don't like what you all are saying." Cuz that's all you're really saying.

Steve, you don't seem to understand what the word "edit" means. You seem insanely insistent in not wanting to look it up. Would you like to talk about that?

Here, let me help you. I have a dictionary right here.

Edit-definition 1 c: to alter, adapt, or refine esp. to bring about conformity to a standard or to suit a particular purpose.

There, see how much easier it is to understand what everyone else is talking about when you understand what the words mean?

You might want to consider buying a dictionary for yourself. Dictionaries are books that have the meanings of a whole lot of words in them, not just the word "edit".

I think you'll find that when you're trying to discuss various matters by using "words" and "language" with other "people", it can be very helpful to have some basic agreement on what the words being used mean.

David, what else did you expect from Wingnut Steve, our resident right wing propagandist?

Caught with his linguistic pants down, @71 he loaded up on non sequiturs, tossed in an argumentum ad hominem, took another swing and missed.

He's given no indication that he can be dissuaded by facts. Now you want him to pay attention to dictionary definitions?

An agreement on what words mean? That's like trying to pin down the the Mad Hatter from Alice in Wonderland.

Dear Ernie,
I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. I also leave Bradblog for such extended periods I think maybe I forget that I mighta already had this interaction with Steve. I know I've had it with others here before.

It became clear to me by his last response that he's just not interested in what actual dialogue requires.

I hesitate to ascribe motivation to a stranger. I don't know the guy and this is such a sensory deprived medium there just isn't enough information to know. For all I know Steve is a precocious 12 year old female space alien doing some sort of sociological study on human behavior. Baiting us may be just one of her data collection strategies.

But whoever Steve is, I(and you and Brad) gave him/her plenty of chances to engage in reasonable give and take. You know--the way most of the rest of us agree is the appropriate way to proceed(excluding instances of alien sociological studies).

Judging by his comments to those with whom he disagrees, Steve gives every indication of not being interested in reasonable give and take. To me it looks like he's into POSING as if he is, but the evidence in this comment thread just screams out that he's not. He's just playing at it for whatever his personal reasons are.

So, I don't take him seriously anymore. I was goofing around in my previous comment, but I was serious, too. He DOES act like he doesn't understand the meaning of words or how to engage in meaningful discussion.

I'm thinking I might refer those unwary of Steve's machinations back to this comment section. I'd feel very comfortable letting others decide for themselves whether they're dealing with a rationale, sincere, human being or not.

David, this has gone on way longer than it should.

I'll say it again. There is ample evidence of Warren using her "minority" status to her benefit despite what a handful of agenda driven progressives (Ed Kilgore, Jonathan Turley, Brad Friedman, etc.) say. Guess what? You will always agree with them, they will always say what you want to hear.

There is also a direct quote from the President. Spinning it doesn't change it I don't give a shit what John Stewart says.

Finally, Ernie writes editorials. They are based on opinions, as are his remarkably lame comments and attacks here. Just because Ernie says something is a fact doesn't make it so. Pull your head out of the sand dude.

“I passed along a comment that was over the top, and it was silly for me to do so,” she told the Herald at a Somerville campaign stop.

Warren had boasted to the National Journal that Wall Street executives have told her: “I want to support your campaign because you will save capitalism.”

Like I said...she is a nut.

Steve, I'll say it again, you still ain't making any sense.

Because you repeatedly make little to no effort to follow generally accepted rules of reasoned argument, I hope you'll eventually stop expecting me to respond to you as if you do. I gave you honest effort in trying to make sense out of arguments that make next to no sense to me and feel like I got a lot of weird dissembling for my trouble. Really not appreciated.

If you think you can't learn anything from a comedian, I'd have to say that's an incredibly weird and unfathomable thing to be proud of.

I repeat, I am completely comfortable encouraging anyone to come check out our little exchanges here and deciding for themselves whether they perceive you as a rational, critically thinking, fair-minded person or not.

Scott Brown said that Rachel Maddow was gonna run against him. He also has said more than once that he has lots of meeting with kings and queens. Thank God there's someone with his head on straight that Republicans can feel comfortable supporting for all the right reasons.

Wingnut Steve lied @ 77:

There is ample evidence of Warren using her "minority" status to her benefit despite what a handful of agenda driven progressives (Ed Kilgore, Jonathan Turley, Brad Friedman, etc.) say.

You are welcome to make an ass of yourself by pretending Obama said something other than what he actually said. You are not welcome to claim I have said something that I did not. Not at my own blog.

Please correct your erroneous statement, or your days of passing along GOP horseshit here at The BRAD BLOG will soon come to an end. Thank you.

Deconstructing Steve @77--

1. "this has gone on way longer than it should"--agree completely but undoubtedly for completely different reasons.

2. Steve's "ample" evidence remains ample to himself alone only because he's apparently incapable of refuting the actual details of the alternative evidence provided. Not a single detail is provided for refutation. In the place of reasoned argument is that favorite right-wing standby--that evidence that I can't refute doesn't count cuz it's from people that I'm incapable of arguing against and cuz I got nothing allow me to throw some dirt in your eyes by dismissing them as progressives with an agenda. And please, if you would, kindly forget that I'm a wingnut with an agenda. Cuz that sort of dismissive agenda label should be applied only to those with whom I disagree.

2. Yeah, I always agree with Brad, Ernie, and the others, except for when I don't. Other than that, great point. And of course the fact that I do agree with them a lot is proof to Steve that we are all wrong. How's that work? Let Steve explain it to ya, cuz I can't.

3. "Direct quote from the President" in reality equals either a. edited for effect quote from the President or b. quote absent the context indicating actual meaning that's been provided multiple times. Steve just can't grasp this one or seem capable of understanding or acknowledging that he hasn't grasped it.

4. No doubt Jon Stewart gives a shit what Steve thinks of him.

5. Steve finishes with a flourish with the diss that his fencing adversary, Ernie, writes editorials. Get it? Cuz editorials are based on opinions as opposed to Steve's comments which are based on solar flares. And, get ready for it, Ernie's comments are no good cuz Steve doesn't agree with them. Would you like some reasons why Steve doesn't like them? Well, that's easy--it's cuz they're lame. Why are they lame? What exactly makes them lame? Well, so far all we got is that that's Steve's opinion of them. But if you could kindly ignore the fact that it's just Steve's opinion, and that a second ago Steve was just dismissing other people's opinions cuz they're only opinions, Steve would very much appreciate it.

First class mindfucking.

Brad, you said @ 13:

Huh. And yet, "from the other side of the country", while you knew nothing about her remarkable accomplishments near the pinnacle of political power in this country at one of the most precarious economic moments in modern global history, you somehow knew all about the phony GOP-generated "scandal" that has been used to tar her.

This is the point of discussion. David is upset that I don't buy into your explanation that it is a "phony GOP generated scandal". There's ample evidence it isn't, despite what you say.

Hard to believe someone would face getting booted for disagreeing with you...

David,

http://thehill.com/blogs...ens-fake-minority-status

http://www.nationalrevie...ity-crusader-artur-davis

http://www.politico.com/.../stories/0512/76200.html

http://www.washingtonpos.../10/gIQAmcNPGU_blog.html

As far as Obama's comment, his campaign is trying really hard to get past that stupid comment he made about small business owners. You might say they are panicked a little bit. They know what he said as well as I do. If Romney wants to win he ought to play that non-stop at his campaign events. The entire quote, every word. That's an opinion

No, Steve @83, you're being misleading again and attempting to distort reality, again.

You do not get to arbitrarily set the boundaries of the discussion--it's all about the initial Warren comments-- by declaring that that is the point of the discussion. No, no, no. That's where it started but then it became a hell of a lot more than that.

Let me explain something to you--if you want to really piss people off(and I don't know, maybe that IS the purpose of all your efforts here, in which case you're doing a great job)ignore what people are saying. Don't respond to points made and thoughts expressed.

The need to be heard is a fundamental one. The need to be heard. Do you understand that other people, besides yourself, want their thoughts and words to be considered? Do you understand that? Your actions say you do not.

When you ignore and misrepresent what others are saying, people may very well get angry. Perhaps you've noticed this(perhaps you haven't). Sometimes they get so mad they call you names. When they do you act all hurt and singled out and victimized like you don't have a fucking clue as to how you've helped provoked these responses.

But maybe you do understand and you're just fucking with us. I have no idea. All I know is that you do not make a hell of a lot of sense.

As our delusional Wingnut friend rails about repeating the lie about the out-of-context Obama quote as some grand scheme for achieving a victory for Mitt “Gordon Gekko” Romney, the folks over at Democracy Now are covering such serious questions as “where Romney stashes his personal wealth” as they peer “into the murky world of offshore finance and…loopholes that allowed Romney to skirt tax laws and store millions in foreign tax havens.”

Then there is a series of articles by investigative reporter Wayne Barrett revealing how, during the 2002 Olympics, Romney violated the same ethics rules he brought in to resolve the ethics crisis in that event and how “Romney continues to accept campaign contributions from many key figures tied to the bribery scandal, including Utah businessman D. Fraser Bullock, who is featured in [a] pro-Romney ad.”

Then there is the issue of Romney’s continued refusal to release his tax returns in the face of reports that a Bain investor told Harry Reid that Romney “didn’t pay any taxes for 10 years,” not to mention the issue repeatedly covered here at The BRAD BLOG as to whether a release of his 2010 state income tax returns would reveal whether or not he committed voter fraud in MA.

Then, of course, there's the hilarity arising from Mitt "Gaffe-a-Minute" Romney's recent trip to London and Tel Aviv.

Did it ever occur to you, Steve, that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones?

re: Steve @ 84 and 85--

But at least you've provided some links to back up your claims. Shall we take a look at them? Be glad to.

1. The first one's from Armstrong Williams. Can we agree that Armstrong Williams is a liar and a shill? I hope so. Wasn't he caught doing something like pretending to be delivering the news when he was actually being paid to support a position? Something like that?

While a liar and a shill may have truth to tell, you gotta consider the source. (Please note: this is not the same as the standard Republican ploy of dismissing people's opinions solely because of their political persuasion. I'm dismissing this witness because he's shown himself to be a liar and a shill for his particular political persuasion.) There is absolutely no attribution in this short piece. I for one am not inclined to take anything on this guy's say so. Steve, if you like him as a source, that's your business.

2. This one is from former Democratic Congressman Artur Davis. Much better source. Davis seems to have gone over to the dark side but his previous record requires me to take him seriously. In this piece, however, again there is no attribution. Nothing to check. He asserts that Warren listed herself as a minority for nine years in Harvard law directories. Did she? I dunno. Can't tell from this piece. If she did, does it mean all the shit Davis and other detractors are saying it means? How does one determine that? For me it comes down to listening to the narratives from both sides and seeing what makes sense, what conforms to my notions of reality and truth. For me this Davis piece doesn't take me too far but it does make me wonder what the hell happened to Artur Davis? He's now for restrictive photo ID's for voting? What the hell?! For me THAT weirdness throws a bit more doubt on his Warren narrative, cuz I KNOW the photo ID stuff is pure bullshit.

3. and 4. In the midst of negative claims about Warren these Washington Post and Politico pieces also throw in these tidbits which I have edited to appear chronologically.--

Politico--Other documents were also obtained by the Associated Press showing that she identified as “white” on an employment record at the University of Texas and, while applying for admission to Rutgers Law School, she declined to do so under a program for minority students.

Wash Po--Warren identified herself as a minority in professional directories during her tenure at Penn but stopped doing so around the time she took a job at Harvard in the mid-1990s

Warren spokeswoman Alethea Harney says the Penn revelation doesn’t change the fact that Warren has never sought to gain from her minority status.

In addition, a Penn professor previously provided a statement saying that Warren did not receive any benefits based on her heritage.

“Her appointment was based on the excellence of her scholarship and teaching,” said Stephen Burbank, who was acting dean of Penn’s law school in 1995. “I do not know whether members of the faculty were even aware of her ancestry, but I am confident that it played no role whatsoever in her appointment.”

Warren has said she only did so in the directories in order to connect with other minority faculty.

Okay, now Steve, I'm doing too much of the work here. As an act of good faith and to show that you have the capacity to understand and articulate an opposing position, tell me how a reasonable person could reasonably assess these links to convey an interpretation exactly opposite to the one they apparently provide you.

Steve @ 86-

For me your insistence on this point is not rational.

Yes, David. You are, indeed, doing too much work, especially if you actually believe that Steve will ever acknowledge error.

Steve has previously admitted to posting false comments solely to try to get a response from me.

He is not concerned with the truth. Never has been; never will be.

Hey Ernie,
I think you've had a lot more interaction with Steve so you may be right. But writing people off completely usually doesn't sit well with me. So I guess I'll have to learn my own lessons in my own time on this one.(note to Steve--see, already here's an example of me not being in agreement with Ernie. Wanna prove him wrong and admit your mistake on that pronouncement?)

And Ernie, you gotta understand that besides my interest in seeing if I can somehow help persuade Steve to play by the commonly understood rules of civil discourse, I use these interactions with him and others whose opinions and styles sometimes make me crazy to sharpen myself. There is a lot to be desired in the way I deal with certain situations. I'm sure I can do better. I think if I work on it, I can improve by getting sharper, clearer, less combative, and less available for weird shit, all of which will make me happier.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree David. You might as well be trying to get Rush Limbaugh to admit he's wrong.

Ain't gonna happen, my friend.

Davey Crocket @ 32 said,

In reality I paid for much more than others and there are some that probably paid virtually zero. In fact a good percentage of people do not pay income tax. Yes, I understand they pay sales tax, gas tax, state tax...blablablabla...I pay all of that too. I am pretty sure that I pay much more than those 40+ % who pay no income tax.

Sorry, Davey. When all taxes are included, the lower economic sectors pay a greater percentage of their income as tax. So, your real tax rate is not "much more than those 40+ % who pay no income tax."

The Consumer Protection Agency is the best reason in the world to vote for Elizabeth Warren. We need all the help we can get to combat the tricks and schemes the bankers try to pull on us. It's already doing quite a lot. She should have been in charge of it...but NO...the republicans would not allow the vote. So, now we go around their obstruction and present them with another Democratic Senator who has our backs...Ms. Warren.

Boston Globe: Brown’s ads mostly silent on senator’s affiliation

http://www.boston.com/ne..._campaign_ads/?page=full