Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 475170)

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 475166)

I tried my best and trained on a number of different types of Scotch. I found Johnny Walker Blue to be the best for me (smooth and not too peat-y). But I still don't like the stuff.

My wife, after our intense training session, took to it. She would drink it all the time if she hadn't discovered bourbon.

TM

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 475189)

You should indulge your affinity for Blue. Of all the scotches you might pick, it's the most affordable.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 475188)

This is great. I've admired Bartlett's howling in the wilderness for years and delight in seeing him validated.

But if we're going to acknowledge the delusions of the Right, we must also flag those of the Left. Granted, there aren't as many delusions on the Left, but the few they do have are Huge. Most significant among them is the notion we can even approach balancing the budget by mere tax increases. Tax the rich, the middle, and the poor as much as is politically possible and we're still nowhere near serious long term debt reduction. That's just math. A second related bit of fiction is the notion we can look solely to revenue enhancement for now, and deal with cuts later. Thankfully, Obama is agreeing to both raise revenue and cut spending. Unfortunately, idiots in his party like Durbin and Reid are saying we can and should raise taxes now, and deal with cuts down the road. That sort of shit thinking needs to stop, yesterday. I can only hope Obama has taken both men aside and slapped them across the lips, vigorously.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 475190)

Really? Because I think it's waaaaaay too expensive.

TM

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 475192)

That had to be sarcasm.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 475194)

It wasn't. But why do you say that? Because it's worth every penny? Hard to find a bottle for less than $190!

TM

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 475194)

It wasn't. But why do you say that? Because it's worth every penny? Hard to find a bottle for less than $190!

TM

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 475195)

I think he meant that Sebby's comment was sarcasm. Because it's $190 a bottle.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 475196)

No, Sebby's comment had to be sarcasm.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 475197)

Ah. Being a not-so-knowledgeable Scotch consumer, that went straight over my head. I didn't know if the fancy Scotch you guys drink was even more ridiculously overpriced.

TM

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 475197)

Ah. Being a not-so-knowledgeable Scotch consumer, that went straight over my head. I didn't know if the fancy Scotch you guys drink was even more ridiculously overpriced.

TM

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 475204)

Nah. Most of the stuff I drink is about 1/3 the price of JWBlue. I've bought a couple of "special" bottles over the years, like 25-year old single malts -- usually in Duty-Free Shops -- that are more, but those aren't for every-day sippin'. (My favorite, the Port Ellen, is basically gone. I've drunk all I've got, they closed the distillery many years ago, and what little is left has gotten ridiculously overpriced.)

The 40-yo I tried the other day probably runs close to 500/bottle. Ridiculous. But ridiculously good. I probably will never buy one, but honestly I'd probably get more satisfaction out of that than I do out of other things I've spent $500 on (such as an overly fancy dinner, tix to a crappy football game, or lap dances). But still.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 475188)

But if we're going to acknowledge the delusions of the Right, we must also flag those of the Left.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 475216)

What dictionary are you consulting? I noted the Left's lunacy is not as substantial as the Right's. It's in the opening paragraph.



If you have shit for brains, yes (if you think we can raise $900bil without utterly destroying the economy... if you think we can tax the lower and middle classes along with the rich and not completely crater demand, and with it any hope of a recovery).



Look up the numbers that will raise. Defense cuts could reach a hundred billion or two. Is that politically possible? I wish. But it's not. And if you think it is, see above re: "shit for brains." And oil subsidies? Look up how much that raises. And when you're done doing that, turn off MSNBC and repeat after me: "I will never use a talking point from this network again in any discussion because it makes me sound like a college sophomore."



Of course there's some overplaying of the hand. (Fuck me for not noting it, which has allowed you to raise this non-response as though it were something insightful.) Then there's the possible, which is what will happen. ...And will not include a result as fantastic as an all-revenue-no-cuts, or all-revenue-now-cuts-later deal.*



Among serious people, the argument that tax revenues alone can balance the budget is considered silliness.** I can't even start explaining why, nor should I have to given your intelligence. If you wish to argue fiscal policy with me, the better argument is Adder's - that balancing the budget over some short term timeline is not important. I must grant him, that is a debatable point. Your argument tests the boundary between frivolous and absurd.

I don't have the time to fight with you today. To anyone else reading, whatever amusing response Ty offers to support the argument we could balance the budget with tax increases alone, or tax increases plus defense cuts and oil subsidy rollbacks alone, will stand as my argument against his position. Whatever hodgepodge he offers will be just that ridiculous.
_______
*This will not, of course, preclude you from characterizing later whatever deal is reached as falling into one of those two categories.
*Don't cite me a blog. Some whore or fool will always take a crazy position to create hits for his site/name recognition.