Tone Deaf Analysis

CNN just interviewed a McCain adviser named Nicole. She not only watched a different debate than the rest of us, she's deaf. She said Obama, whose tax cuts would apply to 95% of Americans, all who earn under $250k, would enact tax increases for the vast majority of Americans.

Once she said that, I just tuned her out.

It's the difference between spinning and outright lying. She lied.

< Obama-McCain Post Debate Thread | CNN Post Debate Poll >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    David Axelrod says Obama couldn't (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:11:28 PM EST
    have been more specific on how to fix the economy.  Guess I missed it.

    You could hear that as... (none / 0) (#8)
    by DudeE on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:14:38 PM EST
    ...it wasn't practical to be any more specific.  Lehrer seemed to be baiting for a certain response.  Obama gave him specifics - such as postponing some alternative fuel initiatives - and then Lehrer asked for a broader response.  McCain stepped in that one by offering to just cut spending on everything but defense and entitlements.  Wrong answer.

    Even the Weekly Standard guy on NPR (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by akaEloise on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:25:12 PM EST
    (who I would have expected to spin for McCain, but he was actually pretty neutral) said there was no point in either of them answering that one, since the amount of the bailout and when it would hit was not determined yet.  

    Did you appreciate... (none / 0) (#11)
    by prose on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:22:08 PM EST
    the four point bailout plan issue?

    wow... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by DudeE on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:12:57 PM EST
    CNN digging up the Kissinger archives.  It's funny that a news network actually has to advertise the portion of the show where they introduce facts.

    Don't deviate from the script... (none / 0) (#1)
    by DudeE on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:06:36 PM EST
    ...apparently the 21st century's first rule of politics (straight from the school of Rove) is to repeat the lie over and over even when you're definitively shown to be wrong.

    That would be Nicole Wallace (none / 0) (#2)
    by caseyOR on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:08:46 PM EST
    formerly of the Bush White House. Just consider the source.

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by TheRealFrank on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:14:30 PM EST
    Goren's arch enemy on Law & Order CI?

    She is evil :-)


    I keep thinking that too! (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by akaEloise on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:22:22 PM EST
    Whenever I read her name, I wonder if she's using her British or her Australian accent....

    Indeed (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:09:55 PM EST
    She's infamous, and very good at it.

    well (none / 0) (#4)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:10:24 PM EST
    CNN says its a draw.  David Gergen agreed and I respect his opinion.  Alex whatever, the gop guy, said it was a draw and that was good for McCain because he might have been KO'd tonight.  

    David Gergen said McCain needed a clear win tonight.

    Palin declined to comment... (none / 0) (#9)
    by DudeE on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:18:51 PM EST
    Wolf Blitzer just announcing Nicole as the booby prize for Republican response since Sarah Palin declined.

    They substituted Rudy G. (none / 0) (#35)
    by cal1942 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:55:37 PM EST
    Spinmistress (none / 0) (#10)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:20:20 PM EST
    My hubby and I yelled at the screen when that she-witch came on.

    I thought McCain came off as tired and condescending. I felt like he was auditioning for the job, basically begging us to vote for him. Obama was much more confident. I could see him as President. At some points, the way McCain was doddering, I was afraid he was going to keel over.

    Re: Tone deaf analysis... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Roosevelt Fan on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:23:53 PM EST
    We shouldn't be surprised... disgusted, but not surprised.

    McCain and his "people" have been telling outright whoppers from the start. It's questionable whether they can even recognize truth from falsity, they've been at it so long.

    But, with McCain, it's not new. In Arizona, his whole Keating 5 episode showed us (I lived there then) his true colors -- and they weren't red, white & blue.

    I should think a majority of people would be onto him (and his spokespersons like this "Nicole") by now. If not, let's just toss our truth, justice and American way badges off the bridge to nowhere, shouting loudly: "We're all Orwellians now."

    Does anyone know how many people (none / 0) (#17)
    by tigercourse on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:28:03 PM EST
    would be affected by Obama's proposed raising of  the Capital Gains tax?

    If the economy keeps on like this (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:30:11 PM EST
    no one will have any capital gains to be taxed.

    I do think it's hard for the GOP to make the argument that Obama's capital gains tax will destroy the economy, when gains would actually be taxed at a lower rate than they were under Clinton.  But of course you always have to be very careful about raising taxes when the economy is struggling.


    I'm still unclear about where Obama would (none / 0) (#21)
    by tigercourse on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:32:59 PM EST
    try to raise them to, but by later in the Clinton administration they were at 20%. The last I heard, Obama was looking at 25-28.

    I heard 35%. (2.00 / 0) (#23)
    by Angel on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:34:57 PM EST
    It's (none / 0) (#26)
    by DudeE on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:37:58 PM EST
    maximum cap gains rate of 28%

    FDR (none / 0) (#25)
    by cal1942 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:36:15 PM EST
    raised taxes extensively and the economy improved.

    Our greatest periods of economic growth have occured during times with much higher federal taxes.  Taxes do not have a real effect on economic growth.  It's always important to remember that you have to make money to pay taxes.  It's also important to remember that public money spent in the economy generates many times itself in economic activity.


    Taxes... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by DudeE on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:43:29 PM EST
    ...are nothing more than a mechanism of wealth transfer.  It's a Republican myth that somehow money only has stimulative properties if in the hands of consumers or private business.  Government spending ticks the economy just as well.

    Needful (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by cal1942 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:20:03 PM EST
    large scale projects are always the province of government.

    If tax cuts, etc. and private investment were used as a stimulus in the 1860s we'd still be trying to build the railroad system. The Erie Canal would never have happened, etc., etc.

    The whole agrument that we have to continually keep cutting taxes is a major crock and a severe impediment to out growth as a nation.  


    "Taxes do not have a real effect on economic (none / 0) (#28)
    by Angel on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:42:23 PM EST
    growth." ???  I disagree.  Also, our economy is very different from when FDR was in office.  Not saying that some of what he did could not work now, just that our entire economy is different in so many ways.  Not only in that we are in a global economy but the nuts and bolts are different.  Back then we were driven by manufacturing, not so today.  I could go on but I think you get what I'm trying to say.

    And (none / 0) (#39)
    by cal1942 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:09:56 PM EST
    I don't agree that the fundamentals have changed since the industrial revolution shifted the nation to an urban oriented society.

    Do you think that people rode about on horseback in the 1930s?

    The New Deal which you believe has little meaning has many of it's principle components still in place.

    The stark reality is that today we need a return to the ideas and philosophy of the New Deal.

    One reason we're in such a terrible financial mess is that the regulatory structures of the New Deal were not extended into the investment banks.

    Many of these clowns were leveraged at 30 to 1 for God's sake. A stringent regulatory structure was needed but wasn't put in place.


    Where did I mention horseback riding? Or that (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Angel on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:18:28 PM EST
    the New Deal has little meaning?  Read my post and quit trying to put words in my mouth.  The economies of today and the 1930's are different in many ways, not all ways.  And what happened to cause the last economic collapse was a run on the banks (panic) and a passive federal reserve which led to more deflation.  That is not what is happening today so the solutions are different because the problems are different.  

    We're heading toward a run. Wachovia (none / 0) (#43)
    by tigercourse on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:21:24 PM EST
    is on the bubble now and looking for someone to help them (Citi, Wells Fargo, etc.). If the bailout doesn't come by Monday, Wachovia could fail. Even if it does come, Wachovia could fail.

    The number of banks on the list of possible failures has doubled over the past weeks from 150 to 300.


    And the federal reserve can put a stop to this (none / 0) (#45)
    by Angel on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:24:12 PM EST

    The fundamental (none / 0) (#46)
    by cal1942 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:24:19 PM EST
    need for stringent regulation is as real today as it was in the 1930s.

    The bank run in the 1930s was one part of a complex series of events and CONDITIONS that brought about the collapse.


    A lot... (none / 0) (#20)
    by DudeE on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:31:59 PM EST
    Probably a lot of people.  I think the estimates are that over half of all US households have equity exposure.

    As for the dollar impact, it will almost certainly be heavily concentrated among the more wealthy.  Almost by definition, the more wealthy generate more wealth from capital gains.

    Keep in mind, it was only during the Bush administration that the cap gains tax was cut.  Question as to whether this is really a tax increase or a repeal of a tax cut.


    I believe that Capital Gains tax was first (none / 0) (#24)
    by tigercourse on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:36:15 PM EST
    cut during the Clinton administration. 1997 I think.

    good call... (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by DudeE on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:39:11 PM EST
    Clinton cut to 20%... Bush cut to 15%

    Correct on Obama's 28%. And I think the current (none / 0) (#31)
    by Angel on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:47:14 PM EST
    tax act (from 1997) has the tax going back up to 20% in 2010.

    That last bit is a good point DudE (none / 0) (#30)
    by cal1942 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:44:09 PM EST
    although their was a cut in capital gains under Clinton.

    I disagree that half the people in the country pay capital gains tax.  Capital gains represent a significant share of income for the wealthy but is miniscule or non-existant for the overwhelming majority of people.

    If you sell your principle residence at a profit (a fairy tale in today's economy) there is no capital gains levy if the residence is replaced within 18 months.

    I've paid capital gains on only one occasion in my life and that was a small profit on a rental duplex.


    It's a tricky question... (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by DudeE on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:52:55 PM EST
    ...I wasn't considering real estate cap gains since it's rarely applicable.  I was speaking of cap gains in the capital markets such as from the sale of stocks, mutual funds, etc.  It is a fact that roughly half of households have exposure to the stock market.  My oversight was in forgetting that most of these households have equity in their 401K or IRA in which case the cap gains are tax-exempt.  A quick Google shows that less than 15% of tax returns show capital gains income.  Mea culpa..

    Fine comment DudE (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by cal1942 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:41:53 PM EST
    The way the GOP and the media talk about capital gains tax you'd think that everyone would be DIRECTLY affected by an increase.

    Last Saturday, at a memorial service for my late sister, her son-in-law, an extraordinarily wealthy man, was crying about Obama's proposal to raise the capital gains tax. His current income stream comes from stock trades, dividends and corporate profits warped to fit as capital gains. He invests and will continue to invest regardless of the tax rate.  That's what he does.  His personal standard of living may be affected by an increase in the tax but not his principle activities. His personal living standard is hard for the average person to imagine. I continue to be stunned by the lavish extent of that life style.

    The bottom line in any GOP tax scheme is to lower taxes on the wealthy.


    I'd just like to offer my condolences for (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by tigercourse on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 12:09:21 AM EST
    the loss of your sister.

    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by cal1942 on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 12:43:00 AM EST
    She was a treasure, my second mother and she passed away far too young.

    One woman I work with... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kredwyn on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:55:00 PM EST
    retired from one job & widowed can't sell her 4 bedroom house to buy something smaller without having to deal with cap gains tax...or buy something even larger with the money from the sale.

    The home was a modest one when they first bought it. But the cost of homes in that neighborhood have risen dramatically since then.

    So...at present, she's stuck. She can't afford the tax thing. The house needs work and maintenance...and as she says, she isn't getting younger.


    so she can't sell the house for more (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by of1000Kings on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 04:11:48 AM EST
    than what she owes on it?  otherwise I don't see how she can't 'afford' to pay the capital gains tax...unless by afford she just means doesn't want to give up that much money...

    It's a common fallacy (none / 0) (#65)
    by Fabian on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 05:43:57 AM EST
    that a home is supposed to generate income or a profit.

    If you do the math on what you have to cumulatively invest in maintenance and repairs and subtract that from any profit you realize on the sale (plus all the costs involved with selling a home), you usually end up with a paltry sum.  The only way to really profit is to take advantage of a bubbly market and flip, flip, flip.  

    Owning a home is usually better financially than renting, but not always.


    She doesn't owe anything on it... (none / 0) (#71)
    by kredwyn on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 08:24:32 PM EST
    beyond what goes into taking care of it.



    gain on the sale of one's primary residence.

    If housing prices have risen so dramatically in her neighborhood that she's sitting on a million-dollar-plus capital gain, it seems to me the proper response is congratulations, not sympathy. That's a problem a great many older people would love to have.

    If you can suggest a way, by adjusting the tax code, to somehow make this woman younger, I'm sure we're all ears. None of us is getting any younger.


    You wouldn't want her medical (none / 0) (#72)
    by kredwyn on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 09:48:51 PM EST
    expenses, which is part of why she's working with me when she should be playing bridge "with the ladies."

    They ate up a good chunk of her savings.


    I don't know how many people but it would be a (none / 0) (#22)
    by Angel on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:33:24 PM EST
    lot.  Lots of baby boomers getting ready to retire so it would affect them quite a bit.  The investment real estate market will take a hit.  That trickles down to real estate professionals, etc., etc. Lots of people will suffer.  This is one area where I disagree with Obama.  Cutting the capital gains tax helped a lot of people, not just the wealthy.

    Based on (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by cal1942 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:52:34 PM EST
    what evidence?

    And why would retiring baby boomers suddenly be hit with capital gains?

    Please explain.

    The great overwhelming bulk of capital gains is paid by wealthy individuals.

    My wife and I retired in 2002.  I'm a War baby and she's a boomer. The only capital gains we paid was on the sale of a rental duplex that had nothing to do with retirement.

    I have Social Security, a pension and an IRA.  My wife has a pension and 2 IRAs.

    No capital gains taxes.


    Boomers living in family homes (none / 0) (#36)
    by kredwyn on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:56:48 PM EST
    wanting to sell and get something smaller...hit with the tax because the home values went up.

    For one...


    Home values have decreased. (none / 0) (#49)
    by cal1942 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:47:10 PM EST
    Given comparison pricing, the value of my house is only two thirds of it's value in 2005.

    And good luck selling anything.


    They haven't decreased everywhere. Not where (none / 0) (#52)
    by Angel on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:58:11 PM EST
    I live and not in many other places.  But we aren't just taking about the past few years, we are talking about the entire time of ownership.  For some baby boomers that could be as long as 35 or more years from purchase time to retirement.  And for many people the biggest investment they'll ever make is in a home.  Now their profit may be taxed at 28% instead of 15%.  Yeah, that's the ticket to fixing the economy.

    Once again (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by cal1942 on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 12:40:09 AM EST
    no capital gains if the principle residence is replaced within 18 months.

    The rate has been 15% for only a few years (spring 2003). That was a decrease from 20% that itself was a reduction in '97 or '98 from 25%.

    In the past the capital gains tax was over 30%.

    If memory serves, several decades ago capital gains were halved and then thrown in with all other income.


    But won't the CGT stick around even (none / 0) (#58)
    by nycstray on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 12:30:48 AM EST
    after the housing market has recovered?

    Or selling a second/vacation home (none / 0) (#57)
    by nycstray on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 12:25:10 AM EST
    I'm moving into my parents cabin otherwise they would be selling it in the near future. Getting older and harder for them to keep up with it as my father's health gets worse and mom is shouldering more of everything.

    Some people may be selling second homes, vacation condos etc as their budgets tighten.Or sell off rental properties . . .


    I didn't say all baby boomers would be affected. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Angel on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:02:10 PM EST
    I said a lot would be.  I don't have a pension, neither does my husband or my sister.  We are all baby boomers. We have real estate investments that are a significant part of our retirement so we would be greatly affected by the almost doubling of capital gains rates.  You are lucky to have a pension.  We are self-employed.

    No tax is painless (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:59:34 PM EST
    but if you want to have a government at all, you have to get your revenue from somewhere.

    Can't we just get away with taxing (none / 0) (#54)
    by tigercourse on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 12:08:08 AM EST
    George Lucas and whatever company owns Headon (apply directly to the forehead!)?

    Would 401K investments be subjected? (none / 0) (#56)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 12:20:39 AM EST
    That would involve a great many people.

    Profit from retirement funds (401k, SEP, etc) (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Angel on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 12:34:26 AM EST
    are taxed at ordinary income rates rather than capital gain rates (so long as there is no early withdrawl).

    A simple rule of thumb (none / 0) (#19)
    by cal1942 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:31:57 PM EST
    from an old Democrat.

    Always assume that the Republican is outright lying or sowing gross deception until proven otherwise.

    Only on very rare occasions is otherwise the case. The bulk of Republican electoral success is based on gross deception and out and out lies.

    Sadly, the fact-checking sites found (none / 0) (#38)
    by Cream City on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:08:38 PM EST
    that both McCain and Obama told whoppers throughout this debate.  Par for the course for pols.  See, for example, WaPo's fact-checking blog.  (I surfed a few others but found WaPo's to move faster than most.)

    And Henry the K is not happy (none / 0) (#47)
    by Cream City on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:28:38 PM EST
    and says Obama misrepresented him:

    Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality.

    I still get the willies watching Kissinger.  Brings back a lot of bad years.  But he carries a lot of weight with powers that be and parts of the public, beyond my ken.


    Can't remember (none / 0) (#50)
    by cal1942 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:51:19 PM EST
    which network (I flashed through the full range after the debate) showed Kissinger on tape making a statement that was completely in-line with Obama's statement.

    Of course Kissinger just issued a statement that disagreed with Kissinger on tape.


    Kissinger was speaking of what he would (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by andrys on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 05:28:19 PM EST
    do at the Secretary of State level, not a presidential one as had been discussed in an early debate.

    Capital gains (none / 0) (#41)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:18:53 PM EST
    Outside of a family selling their house, how often and how many Americans pay caital gains?

    Any time a profit is made on an investment (none / 0) (#44)
    by Angel on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:22:09 PM EST
    whether it be real estate or stocks, bonds, commodities, etc.  There are short-term and long-term gains.  And there are losses.  So whatever the net is (gain or loss), the length of time you held the investment, and your total adjusted income determines how much tax you pay.  It is estimated that over fifty percent of Americans are subject to this tax.  It isn't just the wealthy!    

    DudE (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by cal1942 on Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:54:39 PM EST
    above did some research and the answer is that only 15% of tax returns claim capital gains.

    It's not half as Republicans consistently claim.


    I'm surprised anyone in the US (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by of1000Kings on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 04:17:27 AM EST
    makes any money at all off of investments considering how huge the CGT is/has been...


    there's a difference between making less money because of taxes, and losing money...just so everyone knows...


    or worse, (none / 0) (#64)
    by cpinva on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 04:52:52 AM EST
    It's the difference between spinning and outright lying. She lied.

    she actually believes it.

    there's an assumption (wrong, in my opinion) that all these people are just incredibly smart, and they say these things knowing full well they're wrong. while it may well be true in some instances, i don't buy into it as a blanket statement. i think many of them are just as dumb as a stone, and have substituted blind loyalty for actual intelligence, to get where they are.

    if you send an idiot to harvard, in four years, you get an idiot with a harvard degree.

    Seriously, my live-blog box had the (none / 0) (#66)
    by andrys on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 06:34:29 AM EST
    text in Latin.

      I looked at the source code and that was also in Latin.  Is there a setting I'm missing?

      I thought it would adjust but it never did.

      Maybe it's in Latin only for those banned from half the threads here?

    Was the "Latin" something like (none / 0) (#67)
    by DFLer on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 08:00:36 AM EST
    "Lorem upsum dolor sit amet..." ?

    If so, you were reading some kind of a 'set-up" page.

    Filling a page with "Lorem upsum dolor sit amet..." is a convention or device for graphics designers and web designers to fill in nonsense text to test out a look, a font, an alignment etc. It is not the real content.

    Odd that the code should read that too, though.


    Going back to the live blog page I see (none / 0) (#69)
    by andrys on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 05:25:00 PM EST
     - In that box:
    "Obama-McCain Miss. Debate    (09/26/2008)
        Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Praesent nulla nibh, feugiat eget, placerat non, placerat vel, urna. Cras dictum pellentesque quam. Maecenas ipsum velit, posuere id, hendrerit id, imperdiet consectetuer, metus.
    [Comment From Viewer1]
    Curabitur nisi massa, commodo vel, commodo sit amet, ultricies vitae, massa. Vestibulum et ligula vitae tortor ultrices eleifend.
        In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
        Vivamus tempor feugiat libero. Praesent a magna. Nunc mattis ligula eu nisi rutrum semper. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Nunc auctor.
        [Comment From Viewer1]
    Donec pede. Aenean congue vulputate elit. Proin pretium magna.
        Sed quis dui. Suspendisse elit magna, consectetuer quis, pulvinar a, molestie at, velit. Aliquam suscipit tortor eget libero cursus sollicitudin.
        Phasellus vel lacus. Sed accumsan. Nullam molestie, justo eget ullamcorper adipiscing, libero nulla placerat augue, id convallis quam mauris vel felis.
        [Comment From Viewer2]
    Maecenas fermentum iaculis lacus. Morbi ullamcorper. Nam nunc enim, consectetuer eget, pharetra pretium, tempus vitae, leo. In dolor nulla, cursus venenatis, fringilla ac, condimentum quis, metus. Donec sed orci.
        Morbi aliquet tincidunt ipsum. Curabitur lobortis, lacus a dictum pretium, nibh ligula sagittis libero, ut aliquet eros tortor vitae risus. In a quam. Donec ac erat. Integer sem ipsum, laoreet sed, eleifend fermentum, cursus eget, purus. Nullam orci. Nulla libero nisl, egestas in, commodo a, tincidunt sed, turpis. Cras luctus metus id odio. Phasellus quis sapien. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Aliquam ipsum. Mauris tincidunt, urna non iaculis commodo, nunc neque pulvinar diam, sed tristique metus lacus nec metus. In viverra pellentesque diam. Nulla et felis sed leo commodo bibendum.
        [Comment From Viewer1]
    Quisque sit amet ligula. Suspendisse in dui in justo scelerisque porta.
        [Comment From Viewer2]
    Duis sollicitudin.

      But as I said, maybe it's a special setting for those who are banned from half the threads here.  Since others are seeing English, and I get the same results in Firefox and Internet Explorer, it must have something to do with my settings, regardless of why.


    well there you go andrys (none / 0) (#73)
    by DFLer on Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 02:05:06 PM EST
    It IS  Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, like I thought.

    I suspect that, if the non-live blog thing was reading properly, your browser was unable to read that live box.

    You might try going to that live blog site

    and ask for help, and ask why you're getting lorem-ipsum-dolored.

    It would simply be too unnecessarily complicated to single out certain posters toread in the latin only, but that's just a guess.