This pertains to a thread I started at link provided.

[Bill USA]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x619409

this post pointed out that Standard and Poors in their report lowering the U.S. Credit rating said:

"Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act."

one response (no. 2), to my OP, by bowens43 stated:

2. "There has never been any doubt that these cuts are permanent.
Obama will not allow them to expire."

I responded to this inversion of reality (since the GOP have repeatedly said they want the tax cuts to be made permanent and Obama has repeatedly said he wants them to end (for the higher tax brackets)).. by characterizing comment 2. as a denial of reality and that choosing to be crazy and denying reality was not a very practical way to deal with the real world.

ONe of the administrators DELETED my comment. I object to that deletion.

My comment was hardly abusive, and actually not at all 'over-the-top' when you consider the assertion in comment 2 was completley at odds with what the GOP's stated position is and with what Obama's stated position is.

I do not think people who make assertions which completely deny reality, (e.g. parties stated positions on an issue) should be insulated from vigorous challenges or contradictions of their positions.

the Deletion of my comment was based upon a far too senstitive a 'test' being applied to my statement.

We must note that there is a tactic employed by the ignorant to just assert something, which is entirely without empirical suppport, and to insist on asserting it despite whatever facts that contradict said statement are sited. This is the tactic of the "Big Lie". I think it is acceptable to point out when people are making statments which are simply, patently the inverse of what any sentient person can infer from the real world. I think it is permissable to characterize positions that ignore or contradict the facts (such as stated positions by various parties) as being out of touch with reality. I do not think it is intolerably abusive to characterize such positions as nuts, kookie or insane.

[EarlG]

1. Your post was deleted because

you called another member an idiot, which is a personal attack.