A commenter, who happens to be a conservative Joplin Globe blogger, has been all up in my grill about how much more Mitt Romney has paid in taxes and charity against what Barack Obama has paid (forgetting that they both have wives).
His first comment included this:
I just “heard” that President Obama gave 1% of his income to charities last year. True or false, I do not know. Do you?
After I proved that assertion false, he wrote,
The internet is now filled with tax comparisons between Obama and Romney. Total taxes and charitable contributions for Romney in 2011 is estimated to be 42% of his income…
Cut it however you want to do so in terms of total dollars or percent of taxable income. The differences between the two families is STARK, in my view. Note that Obama’s income before he became famous was around $200,000 per year (2000 through 2004). Wonder how a community organizer made that kind of money????
Now, forget for a moment the implication that a mere “community organizer” might have come by his money (which is chump change to Mitt Romney) in, uh, shall we say, ways other than working for it. Let’s look at the other assertion, which he repeated in a subsequent comment:
Romney has paid, as a percentage of income or total dollars in taxes and charitable giving than Obama, far more in either case. His 2011 estimate of all taxation and charitable giving is 42% of his taxable income.
So who has “given more for his country”, Romney or Obama?
The suggestion is clear. Democrats, especially the uppity Obama, are hypocrites. They want to take rich people’s money and don’t sacrifice themselves.
Well, I did some searching and I discovered that this claim has made the right-wing Internet rounds and the originator seems to have been none other than 
Jennifer Rubin, a right-wing columnist for The Washington Post (the piece was titled, “Romney paid 42 percent of 2011 income in taxes and charity“).
Here’s what she wrote:
Another way of looking at it is that in 2011 the Romneys paid out 42 percent of their income in taxes and charity. Here’s how I got there: Total tax (line 60) + foreign taxes (line 47) + state taxes and real-estate taxes + other taxes (Schedule A, line 9) + charitable contributions (Schedule A, line 19) divided by Adjusted Gross Income (1040 line 37).
I thought I would follow her formula (even though line 47 is a tax credit for paying foreign taxes) and check out her claim. Romney’s 2011 estimated return showed:
____________________________________________________________
1040 Line 60 (total tax; it’s actually line 61 on the 2011 form): $3,226,623
1040 Line 47 (the tax credit for foreign taxes paid): $0
Schedule A Line 9 (state, local, and other taxes): $1,549,596
Schedule A Line 19 (charitable gifts): $4,020,572
____________________________________________________________
Now, let’s follow her formula so far: $3,226,623 + 0 + $1,549,596 +$4,020,572 = $8,796,791
Her next step was to divide that number by 1040 Line 37 (Adjusted Gross Income), which Romney estimates as: $20,901,075. So, we have:
Romney’s charitable giving and taxes paid ÷ Adjusted Gross Income 2011 (estimated)
$8,796,791 ÷ $20,901,075 = 42%
So far, so good, right? She’s correct using her formula for 2011. But the comparison was to President Obama, remember? Here’s what the Globe blogger wrote and what the right-wing blogosphere is pushing:
Romney has paid, as a percentage of income or total dollars in taxes and charitable giving than Obama, far more in either case.
So, since they want to compare Romney and Obama, let’s do so. But we will have to use 2010 returns, since those are the most recent ones we have for both of them.
Let’s start with Romney’s 2010 tax return numbers and again apply Jennifer Rubin’s formula:
____________________________________________________________
1040 Line 60 (total tax): $3,009,766
1040 Line 47 (foreign tax credit): $129,697
Schedule A Line 9 (state, local, and other taxes): $898,946
Schedule A Line 19 (charitable gifts): $2,983,974
____________________________________________________________
Thus, $3,009,766 + $129,697 + $898,946 + $2,983,974= $7,022,383
The final step: divide by 1040 Line 37: $21,646,507. So, we have:
Romney’s charitable giving and taxes paid ÷ Adjusted Gross Income 2010
$7,022,383 ÷ $21,646,507= 32.4%
Wow! Only 32.4%? When Mitt wasn’t in campaign mode, his percentage dropped off, didn’t it?
But how does that compare to Obama? Let’s use the Rubin formula on his 2010 tax return:
_____________________________________________________
1040 Line 60 (total tax): $453,770
1040 Line 47 (foreign tax credit): $22,215
Schedule A Line 9 (state, local, and other taxes): $78,269
Schedule A Line 19 (charitable gifts): $245,075
____________________________________________________________
Thus, $453,770 + $22,215 + $$78,269 + $245,075= $799,329
The final step: divide by 1040 Line 37: $1,728,096. So, we have:
Obama’s charitable giving and taxes paid ÷ Adjusted Gross Income 2010
$799,329 ÷ $1,728,096= 46.2%
Huh? 46.2%? You mean Obama, in terms of the percentage of income he paid in taxes and gave to charity, outdid Romney by 30% (13.8 points) in 2010? Yep, that’s right. And even taking Romney’s higher 2011 number, which conservatives were trying to rub in Democratic faces, Obama outperformed Romney by 9% (4.2 points)!
Damn, that Obama is one slick community organizer. How’d he do that?
Tags: Barack Obama, charitable giving, Jennifer Rubin, Mitt Romney, Romney paid 42 percent of 2011 income in taxes and charity
January 26, 2012 at 4:12 pm |
OMG, Duane, are you kidding me?
First go to the local Globe poll to see how voteres vote, Bottom line is they do not use debates.
But you and I like to debate. That is GREAT in my view and should infulence our readers, I hope.
But now look at the above array of numbers. I assume you can follow them because you wrote them I only look at the bottom line, like debt and deficts today, which you discount as immaterial.
But back to the above array of numbers. Are you tryin to say that OBAMA gave more to his country that Romney in terms of percent of taxable income or total dollars? No way buddy.
But again, so what. Are we electing the best “giver” or the best leader? There is the debate and it should NOT be about who earned the most money or really working, smartly, or who gave the most to the “poor”. It should be all about leadership, as you have heard me speak for time to time.
You are the one that raised the issue of “Romney made too much money and therefore……?” I simply rebutted that point.
But the REAL point is not how much either man or family made or gave to whatever. It is about leadership to move the country in the correct direction. THERE is where the debate should be and not that crazy array of numbers which mean nothing to me about leadership capabilities.
Anson
January 26, 2012 at 5:09 pm |
You brought up the issue of taxes and charitable giving, Anson, even though you are crawdaddin’ on it now. I prefer to leave charitable giving private.
In any case, I didn’t expect you to actually read the post and try to understand what it was saying. That would be asking too much. But, yes, on the terms you presented to me in order to make Obama look like he wasn’t giving as much to his country as Romney, I smashed your argument. In total, Obama gave more and paid more in taxes by percentage than Romney. If you remember, what you claimed was in terms of percentage.
The post speaks for itself. Try reading it and following it or just don’t bother to comment. Either way is fine with me. But you brought it up and I merely did the same calculations that allowed Jennifer Rubin to arrive at the number she did. Why she didn’t bother to calculate the Obama’s giving in 2010 the same way she calculated the Romney’s I will leave to your right-wing heart to figure out.
But I think you know why. It’s the same reason that Berlin Boy, who wouldn’t know a comparable fact if he ran over it with his stick horse, wants to confuse the matter by bringing in different years, none of which we can compare to Romney’s because he refuses to release his tax returns for those years.
As I said before, you guys are getting more pathetic by the day.
Duane
January 26, 2012 at 8:30 pm |
I AM Berlin boy, I am proud of being Berlin boy, I know Berlin boy, and Dwain, you will never, ever be a Berlin boy.
A Berlin boy, (as in Patton going to) believes in the one thing you don’t:
Speaking plainly with the facts, not promoting a leftist agenda that destroys the work ethics and self esteem of the very people who need help the most, and when in doubt going to the founding principles of America and not the first edition of Karl Marx.
As for who’s getting pathetic? You do your math, you live in your own little world. You ignore major news sites, in favor of your own view that supports the agenda. Power to you, that’s your right .
If we didn’t know any better it would only be a matter of time before you said it was “disgusting” for Romney to use the phrase Keeping America, American or picking up a now debunked blog post linking it to the KkK.
Oops, been there done that having we?
Pathetic is as pathetic posts eh dwain?
January 26, 2012 at 4:13 pm |
Well would you believe ABC?:
“The Obamas’ donations to all recipients totaled $2,350 in 2000, $1,470 in 2001, $1,050 in 2002, $3,400 in 2003, and $2,500 in 2004. They also paid federal taxes totaling $311,044 during the same period on their $1.2 million of income.”
(those are the years BEFORE Obama came under public scrutiny running for higher office.)
Or Bloomberg:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and his wife Michelle gave $10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 through 2004 to charities, or less than 1 percent, according to tax returns for those years released today by his campaign.
The Obamas increased the amount they gave to charity when their income rose in 2005 and 2006 after the Illinois senator published a bestselling book. The $137,622 they gave over those two years amounted to more than 5 percent of their $2.6 million income.
(Notice they increase when it really isn’t a “burden” and when the media begins shedding light on their selfishness”
And that 42 percent you’re trying to so desperately dispute came from the Washington Post. So now I suppose the Erstwhile Conservative now knows even more than THAT respected institution?
And let’s not forget at least one link showing that conservatives really DO give more of their money AND themselves:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
So the only thing we really DO know is that Romney has given more money to charity than Obama.
Darn facts, those silly, irresponsible, how dare theyget in the way of our left wing agenda facts.
January 26, 2012 at 4:40 pm |
But, Geoff, speaking for only myself and not Duane who may well give us a “link” to dispute what you have said, with some evidident acurray and not “SPIN”. is this simple point, made above.
Do we elect as President someone that has “been there, done that” in strong competiton in the business world, or someone that has “been there, done that ” as a government fluncky, bureaucrat, “annoitned public offical” and in doing so has give little or nothing to his country, other than a bunch of promises that have NOT been fulfilled?
Simple choice to me, but not Duane. He still thinks the promises will become realtity. Up chuck is my best response to such.
Anson
January 26, 2012 at 8:34 pm |
Anson,
Although I can’t speak for our won V.I. I don’t think the majority of Americans would call ABC, Bloomberg, the Washington Post, and the website RealClear Politics as “spin” sources. But then again I don’t live in the world of unicorns and rainbows.
You are absolutely correct in your differentiating between a Romney that has actually done and accomplished something in the private sector versus an Obama who’s only real claim to fame is riding the rhetoric into the White House and running through 6 trillion dollars in new debt in one term.
January 27, 2012 at 9:54 am |
Trying to get past the political bile and the sad reumption of sophomoric name-calling and back to the issue of the post here, which is a worthy topic at this time in my opinion, I would make a couple of additional points. First, there is a difference between giving by a wealthy person and a not-so-wealthy person. Jesus said it well:
– Luke 21:1-4
I’m not saying that the Obamas were penurious, just much, much less wealthy.
Secondly, as Ross Perot once said (approximate, from memory), you can only drive one car at a time, wear one pair of pants at a time, and whatever you buy, it eventually breaks. In other words, past a certain point of wealth, money changes its meaning for a person. It becomes a means to gain influence or power. One way to do that is to give to specific charities. Another is to run for high public office – we would do well to remember that.
Thirdly, I count it as significant that in the LDS church, tithing (10%) is mandatory, not to mention tax-exempt. So let us not fall all over ourselves in lauding the largesse of the rich.
January 27, 2012 at 11:59 am |
Jim,
First, I am ashamed that I overlooked the widow’s mite episode as it applies to this issue. What an appropriate time to cite it. I’ve tried to say that same thing, but that phrase, “out of their surplus” simply says it all so much better and succinctly. Wow. Thanks for that.
Second, about that seeking “influence and power.” There are many reasons why people do so, from altruistic ones to selfish ones. I suspect that all politicians have some combination of both. And I think it is in measuring that combination that voters must consider all the evidence they see. One can imagine a rich person seeking political office for a host of good reasons and one can imagine such a person seeking that office because of a host of bad reasons, but the only way to have a chance to know the strongest motivation is to look at backgrounds. In other words, how did a candidate seeking office get to where he is? What drives him?
And your point about the LDS church is very important. Back in the early 1980s, I felt compelled—I mean compelled—to tithe to my church. Some weeks it was very painful to stick that money in the collection plate, but most of the time back then I did it. I am not proud of that. I was not motivated as much by altruism as I was by the guilt that I knew would come if I didn’t give. It was sort of a salvation tax. There is something wrong with that and I have learned over the years not to judge people’s apparent generosity too decisively one way or the other.
Duane
January 27, 2012 at 3:49 pm |
Well said, Duane. And relative to tithing because of a feeling of guilt, just imagine how much more intense that pressure would be if, when the church didn’t get their 10% from you, you received a visit from a party of church elders being concerned over your wavering spirituality. That is the way I understand it works in the LDS church.
And by the way, that reminds me of another point not yet made above. There is at least some accountability at the ballot box for tax contributions because of openness, but there is usually very little accountability for the use of church money. So much for guilt.
January 27, 2012 at 6:17 pm |
“…..First, there is a difference between giving by a wealthy person and a not-so-wealthy person….”
And you are the sole arbiter of such?
But let’s just take your logic. Poll after poll, study after study, article after article shows that conservatives, “rich OR poor” give MORE of their time and their money to charity and their fellow man.
Quote Jesus and defend your Dear Leader to your heart’s content, the fact is the Obama’s and the liberal left en mass just doesn’t give of themselves as much as the other 80 percent that makes up the majority in this country.
The American public deserve to know when all these democrats keep spouting off about “fair share” that when it comes to they themselves, they keep for themselves and demand instead that government do the “charity” that Jesus demanded from us in our private lives, not the government.
Oops, sorry Dwain, I forgot, you’re the Bible expert. But did I get that right? I don’t recall anywhere in the good book Jesus ever mandating that the government should take care of all from cradle to grave.
Plenty about “teaching a man to fish” rather than just “giving him a fish”, plenty about charity in the heart and personally helping the poor, plenty about “give unto Ceasar”, plenty about sloth and envy, but nope, don’t recall a thing about “entitlement” and “victimhood”.
Sorry if the language is a bit too “sophomoric” for you Jim, but when commenting here doing so on a “sophomore” level is three grades above the publisher so there really isn’t a choice.
January 27, 2012 at 9:29 pm |
Awww, Geoff. No, you didn’t get it right. Hey, I’m no “Bible expert,” but even I know “Teach a man to fish…” is not from the Bible. You are hilarious.
January 28, 2012 at 5:01 pm |
And….unlike the EC I admit when I’m wrong. I’m certainly no “bible expert” either but I do know the EC claims to be one but then acts 180 degrees opposite.
Glad I could help tickle your funny bone though.lol
January 28, 2012 at 8:45 pm |
@ Mr. Caldwell,
You are wrong. Duane Graham is as honest a person as I have ever known.
January 28, 2012 at 8:59 pm |
Then you need to get out more.
This is the same guy who calls “Keeping America American” “disgusting”. The same guy who pulls that irresponsible story form a left wing blog that MSNBC and the Washington Post called irresponsible and even the Globe called out. (And that’s just ONE example)
BUT if that’s the most “honest person” you’ve ever known then you either know very few honest people or one helluva lot of dishonest ones.
January 28, 2012 at 10:56 pm |
And again, in that column, Duane correctly stated that Mitt wasn’t calling out to the KKK, and anyone with any sense knows it. We’ve been through this before, and you are going to keep “forgetting” it because you think you’ve got an “issue” provided you can get people to forget what really happened.
If this is what you have to do to support your cause, it can’t possibly be a cause worth supporting.
January 29, 2012 at 9:01 am |
BUT he did, AGAIN shall remind you. Run with a discredited story and he DID write that the use of the phrase was “disgusting” and he DID change my comment and replace with his own, but hey, like Wheeler you’re going to defend him no matter what the facts are, I’m just here to point out the other side for ones who aren’t blinded by the liberal lie.
January 28, 2012 at 9:46 pm |
At least you are consistent. You are indefatigable at innuendo, sophomoric name-calling and character assassination. You typically choose partisan bile over reasonable debate, as you do here.
Your example is a perfect one, ” . . . keeping America American”, a classic case of jingoism. It is subject to all kinds of interpretation, but you choose the worst of course, ignoring context. Your accusation conveniently avoids specifics and is designed to squelch dissent by weight of professed patriotism. That’s clearly easier than arguing specifics.
The only reason I spend my time here is my motivation to defend a scrupulously honest man. I know this effort is wasted on you, but I hope not on others.
January 29, 2012 at 8:58 am |
Oh for crying out loud Jim, come down from your tower hypocrisy long enough to see the truth. If you want specifics I’ll put an entire column together and post it over on dwainbwain for you.
He’s the one who played the “jingoism” with the Romney story and STILL refuses to admit irresponsible posting. He’s also the one calling be “Berlin boy” but do you see my crying and whaling or having someone else defend me as being so “honest”?
And the only reason I spend my time here is to call out for others that all is not seems in many of the posts that you think are “honest”.
You can sit atop your high horse and say he’s “honest” and defend his behavior but that still does not make the site an “honest” site. After all, I do believe it is this site that has been pulled; it is this site (and yours) that was called out for censorship, comment changing, and outright banning; it is this site who with far too much commonality runs with left wing blog posts only to find out later they are not a reliable or truthful source; THAT is the blog that in your liberal world is “honest”.
Keep on defending, I’ll be happy to keep on using those silly things called actual examples in his own posts and the credible part of the industry to prove the opposite.
But like you say of me, I don’t do it to ever think you’ll change YOUR mind, I do it that others might see a little reality in that liberal land of unicorns and rainbows.
January 29, 2012 at 11:37 pm |
GG,
Look, Geoff was merely using poetic license and putting words in the Savior’s mouth that he suspects He would say if only He had had sufficient insight to think of it. Jesus obviously had other things on his mind, like, say, giving the multitudes free fish! (Matthew 14:19) He did that after he handed out free health care! (Matthew 14:14) Wise but godly folks like Geoff know now that giving away free food and health care is actually a bad thing and practiced these days only by Kenyan socialists who hate America.
And by the way, we know Jesus loved America because Mitt Romney’s church, and presumably Mitt Romney himself, believe He vacationed here sometime after his resurrection. And nobody takes a much-needed vacation in a place they hate! So, ipso facto, Jesus loves us!
Duane
January 29, 2012 at 9:11 am |
To all,
“Honesty” in politics, are you kidding me, or even the law for that matter?
Ever been in a debate club, where you are told just before the debate whether you must be pro or con on a given issue, just before you begin the COMPETITION. A good debater knows both sides of an issue well enough to take either the pro or con position and WIN a competition. That is pure politics, to defend whichever “side” one is assigned or chooses to take, in a blog, in a debate, in various forms of discussions or arguments.
Did Johnny C. LIE in his defense of OJ? Not that I ever heard and if he had done so he would have been disbarred. It is against the LAW to lie in court, whether on the stand as a witness or the lawyer makiing arguments before the court.
Politics is the art of persuasion. Is “spin” lying? Not at all most of the time. It is picking the points in a given issue that enforce your own arguments and ignoring or trying to diminish the other sides points. Heck, that is the essence of international relations as well and sometimes it takes a WAR in such cases to decide which side was really the “lying SOB”. Winners make such judgements, in courts, in elections and in wars.
Lawyers spend three years in post graduate study to first learn the actual law and then be able to defend OR prosecute when a violation of such is alleged. They are not trained to LIE. They are trained to win a debate through deep understanding of a given issue and then persuade others their positions, a jury, a judge, an election, etc.
Plato was the first writer of whom I am aware, that tried to decide who best to “run society”. He picked the “judges” those with deep learning and discernment on a wide variety of social issues, to make final JUDGMENTS on given debates.
We in these blogs are the “lawyers” arguing before the “court of public opinion”. Thus there is NO ultimate winner or loser in these “debates” unless you consider an election to determine such.
But even then, there is always the “next election” to renew our debates, right after the last one ends. Duane and I have been doing so since 2008. And neither one of us has (yet) accused the other of LYING. But both of us “spin” our stories with lots of effort as well.
Now how many times has Duane accused me of just regurgitating Fox News back to readers, or I have “yelped” over yet another MSNBC “clip” that he uses to persuade readers? Are such tactics dishonest??? No way. They may be unpersuasive, but not outright LIES, in my view.
EVEN in extraordinary instances of national prominence there remains great debate. Did Clinton LIE under oath. Well it depends on what “is, IS”, right?
Anson
January 29, 2012 at 10:34 am |
Right, Anson. I generally agree with your sentiments and that the various devices of debating are fair tools for political discourse and other blogging. Omitting facts, for example, is par for the course. I submit however that a minimum of respect and civility are essential to the process. You seem to imply that in your comment as well.
As a blogger I derive pleasure when replies indicate either agreement or interest in what I’ve said, and based on the statistics page many people simply read without commenting themselves. When someone respectfully disagrees, I pay attention. It is my opinion that everyone gains when civility and respect are present. When they are not, the process is about as interesting as watching a dog fight, at least to me.
As I’ve said before, and this is important, personal attacks between writers are very different from personal attacks on people in politics or are otherwise in the public arena but ad hominem attacks on other writers degrade the process for everyone. How can you have a meaningful conversation with someone who is openly contemptuous of you? You can’t – it simply becomes a contest rather than an exchange of opinion.
January 29, 2012 at 1:17 pm |
P.S. – On thinking further on the subject of bloggers who eschew civility, I am wondering: if they do that on blogs, how do they handle heated arguments with their spouses? I think every couple has them – I know we have. Do they come up with snarky, demeaning names for them too? Hmm. Must be interesting.
January 30, 2012 at 2:21 am |
Geoff,
I will temporarily break my rule of ignoring you because, well, I made the bleeping rule and I can break it anytime I want to.
And there are a couple of reasons I feel it necessary to respond to what you have written even though I know it feeds your Gingrich-sized ego to do so. I know, I know, I will hate myself in the morning.
In any case, I have previously disposed of the lie you continue to tell about the Romney KKK thing, so I won’t bother with that one except as I indicate below. Same thing with the nonsense about me replacing one of your comments (I only substituted a link to His Majesty, Barack Obama, for a link to your blog you were trying to promote which was based on yet another lie).
But you have told another lie in this response (I have lost track of most of them by now, but I am sure you are giving Mitt Romney a run for his money) that I will expose and then warn you about it and other such lies.
You wrote,
This site has never—I repeat, never—”been pulled.” You know why? Because only WordPress and I can pull it down. The link on the Globe site to this blog was temporarily removed when someone filling in for the editor panicked over my criticism of an article in the Globe about a local Republican candidate named Shelly Dreyer (I was subsequently found to be absolutely correct, by the way, and the paper ran a story correcting its original reporting and my awesome face and link were duly restored).
In fact, a link to my blog always appeared on the Globe site because it sat at the bottom of the home page, as I recall. Someone forgot to take that one off, so even if you claim you were referencing the Globe link to my blog you are still bleeping wrong.
Now, the warning: If you continue to insist on repeating lies that you have been given plenty of opportunity to publish (and which have been thoroughly refuted), and if you continue to make references to Dwain Bwain (which doesn’t bother me personally but is an embarrassment to the Globe blogging community and thus the paper), then I assure you I will ban you again (and without explanation).
You are free to criticize what I write, and anything I stand for, and any idea that I espouse. You can write falsely about my claiming to be a Bible expert (which I never have, but since it bothers you so much I will tell you that the God of the Bible visited me and told me the secrets of His book) because that only adds to my awesomeness, which you long to imitate. But as far as the other stuff you will have to find a way to go cold turkey. Again, I am holding you to higher standards on this stuff because, sadly and unfortunately, you are a paid Globe blogger.
Finally, there is something unseemly (or, possibly, pathological) about your continued fascination with my admittedly fascinating awesomeness, which you express by insulting my intelligence, a classic case of the age-old idea of there being a fine line between love and hate. Thankfully, science can help us understand this strange but common phenomenon:
Look, I’m not altogether comfortable with this diagnosis, and I am sure you will deny it (which is just a confirmation of it, isn’t it?), but I want you to know your secret is safe with me.
Duane
January 30, 2012 at 2:28 am |
Jim Wheeler,
You already know that I respect you and your writing (and your friendship), and I hope you know that I am honored that you took the time to respond in my defense.
Duane
January 30, 2012 at 12:31 pm |
To all,
I still call for NOT accusing someone of LYING. Strong difference of opinion, yes, uncivil, yes, but outright and intentional dishonesty, I disagree.
Now we can argue about what “Pulled, “is”", right or whether the “order” to do so was valid,right, or …….
I would much prefer to establish our definitions of “incivility” and argue about what is right and wrong in that regard and leave outright dishonest with the intend to deceive out of crass self interest (at least a partial attempt on my part to define LIES).
Barack Obama is NOT the first black President. Is that a lie? Not a chance. He is the first half black President, technically. But so what.
Anson
January 30, 2012 at 3:21 pm |
Yeah, sure, we can argue about what words mean, but sometimes the meaning is contextually clear enough to pass judgment. How else can we have an intelligent discussion in forums like this?
Your statement about President Obama is, of course, ridiculous and deserves no further comment except to say that I just hope those pitiful black folks who thought Obama was black don’t find out the truth. They might not vote for him next time.
I suppose I could play this reductionist game and say that the Obama -is-not-the-first-black-president comment above was not really submitted by Anson Burlingame, a Globe blogger, but by a collection of chemicals arranged according to the following formula:
Thus, I urge all to ignore the comment attributed to Anson, as it did not come from Anson Burlingame at all, and the mass of chemicals that submitted it is lying if it says it did.
“I don’t know how you debate a person with civility if they’re prepared to say things that are just plain factually false.” —Newt Gingrich about Mitt Romney