Okay, easy question. What were the tax rates when Jobs and Wozniak incorporated Apple in 1976 or 1977? The answer is probably high enough to make you scream socialism.

No, the tax rates did not cause the high rates of growth. At the same time, it didn't prevent these high levels of growth either. Just like the Clinton tax increases did not prevent a boom. Decreasing taxes even further won't solve the problem.

Since the 1980s, Union membership has rapidly declined, so I don't quite see your point. I think that it is in incredibly bad taste to cut Medicare benefits for future recipients(see the CBO report on the Ryan plan) while simultaneously calling for even LOWER taxes on the rich.

Will is elderly! Therefore he can't attack the elderly! ROFL. This is almost as laughable as the Republican proposal to cut unemployment benefits for millionaires.

"Reich ignores six decades of tax receipts showing how the “one percent” pay an egregiously progressive amount year after year. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay only a consumption tax, noting on income (further highlighting the need for a flat tax or simple graduated consumption tax to replace our burdensome, economy-killing Rube Goldberg-type system). Furthermore, when rates are cut, revenues increase (see the 1920s, 60s under Kennedy, and 80s)."

Wrong. Did you even watch the video? To the contrary, Reich correctly notes that the United States enjoyed its strongest growth rates while the top marginal rate was "egregiously high" as you put it. "When rates are cut, revenues increase." This is why it's almost impossible to have a discussion. When rates AREN'T cut, revenue also increases. Correlation does not imply causation.

Red-staters already show this level of devotion to their make believe dictator in the sky, hence their need to try pinning anyone left of center as being similar with respect to Obama. It's beyond me how any "evangelical Christian" can talk about a cult of Obama with a straight face.
When you look at it, this level of devotion to Kim Jong Il as some sort of deity makes more sense than Christianity. Compared to Jesus, there's at least solid proof Kim Jong Il actually existed.

No, he didn't.

Yeah, it's a desperate attempt when others do it, but not when BigJournalism and the right wing blogosphere do it. Just the other day, you guys implied that a tulip in the mural of the Time cover was based on was a nefarious pro-Iran message. There's no doubt in my mind that you guys would have a field day if you found a similar anti-semitic cartoon in a "mainstream media" publication.
Yet the hypocrisy doesn't end there. You guys cheerleaded the anti-semitic smear of several journalists and commentators. Here's the best part: The vile attacks you're talking about were pretty much copied from a post on a conservative listserv by another former AIPAC official. An organized smear campaign on a listserv? Sound familiar?

I must say that I'm surprised by how commenters here can correctly defend themselves against claims of Tea Party racism, and then support these anti-semitic smears. Similar to what happened with the Tea Party, it's perfectly clear what's happening here. False claims of racism are being used to stifle debate, in this case about the lobbying efforts of a special interest group. The attack on Rosenberg(a Jewish former AIPAC official himself) is absurd on its face. By bashing Rosenberg, Dunetz is as much a "Jew basher" as he claims Rosenberg is. This latest round of anti-semitism claims is absolutely disgusting.

If anything, the context makes it worse. The cartoon was originally used in Nazi Germany to depict Jewish control of the US media. The Star of David has conveniently been removed from what is essentially Nazi era propaganda.

The cartoon was used in multiple articles here about media bias. What are we supposed to think was intended when we see a racist caricature of a Jew looming over the US Media? BigJournalism should immediately apologize for using this anti-semitic cartoon.

Hey, where's the story about BigJournalism using an anti-semitic cartoon?? It seems to have disappeared without much comment. Surely if you guys can explain how a Andy Warhol style Christmas ornament means Obama is a Maoist or how Time's cover signifies support for Iran, you can explain why you'd use such a vile basis for a cartoon as this: http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/kla1942/0...

If she were just criticizing him for being divorced, that would be hypocrisy. It's not inconsistent to be divorced and criticize a candidate in the family values party that won't shut up about marriage being sacred

I don't think you understand what hypocrisy means, Dan. She's not running to be the candidate of the 'family values' party. It should also be noted that Newt's last two marriages ended after he had cheated on his wives.